I brined a bunch of chicken thighs this morning, then pulled them out, slathered them in bbq sauce, and put 'em on the hot grill. Let that first coat get ever so slightly scorched, and then as you turn it you just keep layering on more bbq sauce every time, so you wind up with chicken that's both juicy and has that caramelly smokiness from the initial scorching. Om nom nom nom nom.
A trap is for fish: when you've got the fish, you can forget the trap. A snare is for rabbits: when you've got the rabbit, you can forget the snare. Words are for meaning: when you've got the meaning, you can forget the words.
JuliusCaptain of Serenityon my shipRegistered Userregular
I actually mention I'm straight (and single. Ladies.) in every post no matter the topic. I'm hoping girls are attracted to my bold political beliefs.
nah, really I don't post political shit anyway or change avatars on facebook, mostly because everyone in my list already agrees with me. But "straight ally" seems like more of a "yo it's 2013 dudes, even straight people think gay people are people too." than a fear of being perceived as possibly homosexual.
It seems kind of mean-hearted to suppose that anyone who says "I support your cause even though it doesn't directly benefit me" is doing it to directly benefit themselves.
I think the problem is that it almost emphasises the Straight over the Ally. Why does the Straight need to be stated up front, why couldn't it be left for people to follow-up on if they were interested? It kind of puts a deliberate division in the group, rather than being all inclusive.
But that's just my gut feeling.
Tri-Optimum reminds you that there are only one-hundred-sixty-three shopping days until Christmas. Just 1 extra work cycle twice a week will give you the spending money you need to make this holiday a very special one.
I think the problem is that it almost emphasises the Straight over the Ally. Why does the Straight need to be stated up front, why couldn't it be left for people to follow-up on if they were interested? It kind of puts a deliberate division in the group, rather than being all inclusive.
But that's just my gut feeling.
Because that the way our cis-normative patriarchal English grammar works: adjective then object. If we spoke French, I'd be un ally straight.
It's not so much the order, but the fact that it's mentioned at all. Why "Straight Ally" over "Ally"? It takes the emphasis off Ally and puts it on Straight, which strikes me as divisive.
Tri-Optimum reminds you that there are only one-hundred-sixty-three shopping days until Christmas. Just 1 extra work cycle twice a week will give you the spending money you need to make this holiday a very special one.
It's not so much the order, but the fact that it's mentioned at all. Why "Straight Ally" over "Ally"? It takes the emphasis off Ally and puts it on Straight, which strikes me as divisive.
It's not divisive, it's an effect of how our language works. Especially in the "straight, but not narrow" slogan. It's just how we speak and construct sentences.
Doesn't "ally" necessarily imply "I'm helping you, not fighting for myself?"
Its rather important for as many that are against same-sex marriage and brush it off as some self serving argument by a tiny fraction of the population realize that plenty of straight people, who have no vested interest in this fight because it doesn't effect them in the least bit one way or another also support it.
If someone told me, they were my "Straight Ally" I would say "Thank you." because for fucks sake, leave the petty bullshit to the bigots and grow the fuck up. (Not you Astaereth, speaking generally toward the author of the article.)
Viskod on
+3
Options
AtomikaLive fast and get fucked or whateverRegistered Userregular
A Facebook friend of mine (actually an old girlfriend from high school) took a bit of shit this week by posting this:
“Our culture has accepted two huge lies. The first is that if you disagree with someone’s lifestyle, you must fear or hate them. The second is that to love someone means you agree with everything they believe or do. Both are nonsense. You don’t have to compromise convictions to be compassionate.”
This was her attempt at showing her solidarity for the LGBT rights movement while maintaining her evangelical cred. She was eaten alive for it by friends who were LGBT rights supporters.
I think rightly so. While I think most of us would accept that sentiment from those who have opposed the advancement of LGBT issues, it's still a shitty thing to say to people who you ostensibly support. Again, just putting it into the context of other civil rights issues, it's hard to imagine a rational person using that same quote in defense of minority rights or women's rights.
The last sentence gives the game away: "You don't have to compromise convictions." Sure you do. That's what the entire LGBT struggle is about. If your convictions tell you that being gay is wrong, hating the sin while loving the sinner is still projecting negative judgment on people. So go screw yourself; nobody cares about your personal religious hangups about gay people. This isn't about you.
You could make an argument that she doesn't have to compromise her conviction that it would be wrong to marry a woman; all she has to do is agree that other people should be allowed to make the decision for themselves rather than have it forced on them.
In short: I disagree.
EDIT: the only "convictions" that are subject to compromise here is the conviction that choices can be forced on or denied to others.
It makes sense when you phrase things as vaguely as she does, but the fact is that you can't be compassionate to people while disagreeing with something as basic to their happiness as the ability to be in a healthy relationship with someone they're attracted to and receive all the protections that that should entitle them to.
If you think that person shouldn't have what you have, then you're being selfish and closed-minded, not compassionate.
Facebook was better when all your statuses had to be prefaced with "[Name] is..."
Kept the glurge to a minimum and anti-equality types had to stick with putting "against the gays" to show their colours, rather than waffling on at length.
[Muffled sounds of gorilla violence]
+1
Options
ElldrenIs a woman dammitceterum censeoRegistered Userregular
It makes sense when you phrase things as vaguely as she does, but the fact is that you can't be compassionate to people while disagreeing with something as basic to their happiness as the ability to be in a healthy relationship with someone they're attracted to and receive all the protections that that should entitle them to.
If you think that person shouldn't have what you have, then you're being selfish and closed-minded, not compassionate.
Well, right. What are we being "compassionate" about here? The rights of gays to not be stoned in the street? The right to marry?
The right to still be condescended to by bigots, just not in a legally-binding way?
She's basically saying, "I support LGBT rights, but I still think as a Christian I'm better than those homos."
Indeed. It is in the same neighborhood as pity and charity. There's no acknowledgement here of equality or notions of solidarity. It's just, "Aw, be nice to the gays. They're so pitiful."
Yeah, you don't need to agree with my lifestyle, go fuck yourself.
0
Options
AstaerethIn the belly of the beastRegistered Userregular
And yet that's a vote for marriage equality that y'all just told to fuck off and die.
There's letting somebody know that, while appreciated, their viewpoint needs some work; and then there's alienating supporters who aren't supporting you in exactly the way that you'd prefer. LGBT rights are not so far advanced that we can afford to do the latter.
It is amusing to see the exact flip side of the "straight ally" discussion happening right afterwards. "If they're going to be allies, who cares if they identify as straight. Might even be helpful!" "I don't care if she's supportive, how dare she identify as disapproving! Even if that might get other evangelicals into the support column."
And yet that's a vote for marriage equality that y'all just told to fuck off and die.
There's letting somebody know that, while appreciated, their viewpoint needs some work; and then there's alienating supporters who aren't supporting you in exactly the way that you'd prefer. LGBT rights are not so far advanced that we can afford to do the latter.
It is amusing to see the exact flip side of the "straight ally" discussion happening right afterwards. "If they're going to be allies, who cares if they identify as straight. Might even be helpful!" "I don't care if she's supportive, how dare she identify as disapproving! Even if that might get other evangelicals into the support column."
$50 says that she means "you don't have to stop opposing civil rights for gay people to be compassionate to them."
And frankly, there's a world of difference between "I can pity you, even though I think you're gross" and "I am 100% behind you, what can I do?"
You don't need to crawl through the mud to get the barest hint of approval when you can just work with the people who are actually interested in getting something done.
Well given that she explicitly said that you shouldn't fear or hate people for having different convictions, why not give her the benefit of the doubt until she proves otherwise?
There'll be plenty of time for purity testing after we've won.
KalTorakOne way or another, they all end up inthe Undercity.Registered Userregular
Sounds a lot like Cardinal Dolan's recent mouth-diarrhea about how Catholics should be nicer to the poor gays, but of course that doesn't mean anything silly like letting them marry. I.e. "I'd really like to be able to keep oppressing you, and it would be a big help if you stopped getting so mad about it. It's making me look bad."
Well given that she explicitly said that you shouldn't fear or hate people for having different convictions, why not give her the benefit of the doubt until she proves otherwise?
There'll be plenty of time for purity testing after we've won.
She explicitly sad jack all. If you answer the question "Hey, do you think gay people should have full standing as citizens?" with a bunch of half-measured bullshit I can come back in a decade when you'll have always thought it was a good idea.
Maybe she is, but I don't think counter-hating her is exactly the right tactic.
Maybe she's on the wire and can be conviced to fully support if given the right arguement. Automatically hating on her because she doesn't fit the ideal "straight supporter of gays" is similar to the purity testing that the Right does.
So, disagreeing and thinking her opinion is wrong is fine, but telling her to fuck off can maybe push her the wrong way and you gain another opponent.
Battlenet ID: MildC#11186 - If I'm in the game, send me an invite at anytime and I'll play.
And yet that's a vote for marriage equality that y'all just told to fuck off and die.
There's letting somebody know that, while appreciated, their viewpoint needs some work; and then there's alienating supporters who aren't supporting you in exactly the way that you'd prefer. LGBT rights are not so far advanced that we can afford to do the latter.
It is amusing to see the exact flip side of the "straight ally" discussion happening right afterwards. "If they're going to be allies, who cares if they identify as straight. Might even be helpful!" "I don't care if she's supportive, how dare she identify as disapproving! Even if that might get other evangelicals into the support column."
How do you get support for marriage equality from a statement that says "You don't have to hate someone to think they are second class." ?
The argument shouldn't be, "Support gay rights even if you don't like the fact that gays exist and you think they're gross," the argument should be, "Support gay rights."
Because just like so many other issues evangelicals take up, it's not about you.
And yet that's a vote for marriage equality that y'all just told to fuck off and die.
There's letting somebody know that, while appreciated, their viewpoint needs some work; and then there's alienating supporters who aren't supporting you in exactly the way that you'd prefer. LGBT rights are not so far advanced that we can afford to do the latter.
It is amusing to see the exact flip side of the "straight ally" discussion happening right afterwards. "If they're going to be allies, who cares if they identify as straight. Might even be helpful!" "I don't care if she's supportive, how dare she identify as disapproving! Even if that might get other evangelicals into the support column."
How do you get support for marriage equality from a statement that says "You don't have to hate someone to think they are second class." ?
Where did she say they're second class citizens?
Where did she say you're a pitiable charity case?
I see he saying people shouldn't hate other people just because they don't approve of their life style. But you're vehemently opposed to this concept for some reason.
Girl says that just because you don't like someone's life style doesn't mean you should hate them.
Supporters of gay marriage tell her to fuck off.
Bravo, people.
Just like how all of those people who don't support same sex marriage tell us they aren't homophobic, and they don't hate gay people at all, that they love us as people, we just shouldn't have the same rights?
Just like those people? Alright.
0
Options
AstaerethIn the belly of the beastRegistered Userregular
Maybe it is because her statement isn't about being a straight ally at all but allowing us concessions?
Oh gee, that's great!
Being tolerated isn't what it is all about. It is about equality, going "it should be allowed but you are still wrong as a human being" isn't useful.
Fuck off. She isn't showing support.
In the context of fighting for legal rights, "It should be allowed but you are still wrong as a human being" is absolutely useful. And the gay rights movement is in no way in a position to refuse that kind of tolerance; when it comes to determining whether or not they even have the majority of public opinion on their side, they're still within the margin of error, with support increasing about 2% per year. That's a long way to go from "possible majority" to full acceptance, and I would rather get there before I'm old enough to retire, thank you. If that means being nice to people who are literally making a sincere effort to tolerate me and mine, then I have no problem doing that.
If the 50% of the population who don't support gay rights believed that gays should be legally equal, no matter what their moral status, we'd have all the rights we've spent decades fighting for.
You probably can't force social acceptance on individuals by yelling at them; and trying to do so risks losing that person's support in the more important realm, the battle for legal rights.
Posts
If anyone sounds narrow minded, it's her.
nah, really I don't post political shit anyway or change avatars on facebook, mostly because everyone in my list already agrees with me. But "straight ally" seems like more of a "yo it's 2013 dudes, even straight people think gay people are people too." than a fear of being perceived as possibly homosexual.
The intention seems to be "you don't have to be gay to understand gays deserve equality" so I'm not gonna look for offense there.
But that's just my gut feeling.
Because that the way our cis-normative patriarchal English grammar works: adjective then object. If we spoke French, I'd be un ally straight.
It's not divisive, it's an effect of how our language works. Especially in the "straight, but not narrow" slogan. It's just how we speak and construct sentences.
Its rather important for as many that are against same-sex marriage and brush it off as some self serving argument by a tiny fraction of the population realize that plenty of straight people, who have no vested interest in this fight because it doesn't effect them in the least bit one way or another also support it.
If someone told me, they were my "Straight Ally" I would say "Thank you." because for fucks sake, leave the petty bullshit to the bigots and grow the fuck up. (Not you Astaereth, speaking generally toward the author of the article.)
This was her attempt at showing her solidarity for the LGBT rights movement while maintaining her evangelical cred. She was eaten alive for it by friends who were LGBT rights supporters.
I think rightly so. While I think most of us would accept that sentiment from those who have opposed the advancement of LGBT issues, it's still a shitty thing to say to people who you ostensibly support. Again, just putting it into the context of other civil rights issues, it's hard to imagine a rational person using that same quote in defense of minority rights or women's rights.
The last sentence gives the game away: "You don't have to compromise convictions." Sure you do. That's what the entire LGBT struggle is about. If your convictions tell you that being gay is wrong, hating the sin while loving the sinner is still projecting negative judgment on people. So go screw yourself; nobody cares about your personal religious hangups about gay people. This isn't about you.
In short: I disagree.
EDIT: the only "convictions" that are subject to compromise here is the conviction that choices can be forced on or denied to others.
If you think that person shouldn't have what you have, then you're being selfish and closed-minded, not compassionate.
https://twitter.com/Hooraydiation
Kept the glurge to a minimum and anti-equality types had to stick with putting "against the gays" to show their colours, rather than waffling on at length.
fixed
Well, right. What are we being "compassionate" about here? The rights of gays to not be stoned in the street? The right to marry?
The right to still be condescended to by bigots, just not in a legally-binding way?
She's basically saying, "I support LGBT rights, but I still think as a Christian I'm better than those homos."
@Viskod
Indeed. It is in the same neighborhood as pity and charity. There's no acknowledgement here of equality or notions of solidarity. It's just, "Aw, be nice to the gays. They're so pitiful."
There's letting somebody know that, while appreciated, their viewpoint needs some work; and then there's alienating supporters who aren't supporting you in exactly the way that you'd prefer. LGBT rights are not so far advanced that we can afford to do the latter.
It is amusing to see the exact flip side of the "straight ally" discussion happening right afterwards. "If they're going to be allies, who cares if they identify as straight. Might even be helpful!" "I don't care if she's supportive, how dare she identify as disapproving! Even if that might get other evangelicals into the support column."
$50 says that she means "you don't have to stop opposing civil rights for gay people to be compassionate to them."
And frankly, there's a world of difference between "I can pity you, even though I think you're gross" and "I am 100% behind you, what can I do?"
You don't need to crawl through the mud to get the barest hint of approval when you can just work with the people who are actually interested in getting something done.
There'll be plenty of time for purity testing after we've won.
She explicitly sad jack all. If you answer the question "Hey, do you think gay people should have full standing as citizens?" with a bunch of half-measured bullshit I can come back in a decade when you'll have always thought it was a good idea.
I don't know if you can assume that, certainly not in terms of large groups.
"Separate and not equal, but tolerated" is not something I would imagine gets out the vote.
Maybe she's on the wire and can be conviced to fully support if given the right arguement. Automatically hating on her because she doesn't fit the ideal "straight supporter of gays" is similar to the purity testing that the Right does.
So, disagreeing and thinking her opinion is wrong is fine, but telling her to fuck off can maybe push her the wrong way and you gain another opponent.
Battlenet ID: MildC#11186 - If I'm in the game, send me an invite at anytime and I'll play.
I'm extremely anti-smoking, but I have no problem with reconciling that conviction with being against making it illegal
Oh gee, that's great!
Being tolerated isn't what it is all about. It is about equality, going "it should be allowed but you are still wrong as a human being" isn't useful.
Fuck off. She isn't showing support.
How do you get support for marriage equality from a statement that says "You don't have to hate someone to think they are second class." ?
Supporters of gay marriage tell her to fuck off.
Bravo, people.
I agree.
The argument shouldn't be, "Support gay rights even if you don't like the fact that gays exist and you think they're gross," the argument should be, "Support gay rights."
Because just like so many other issues evangelicals take up, it's not about you.
We don't need marriage, civil unions will do, right?
Where did she say they're second class citizens?
Where did she say you're a pitiable charity case?
I see he saying people shouldn't hate other people just because they don't approve of their life style. But you're vehemently opposed to this concept for some reason.
Just like how all of those people who don't support same sex marriage tell us they aren't homophobic, and they don't hate gay people at all, that they love us as people, we just shouldn't have the same rights?
Just like those people? Alright.
In the context of fighting for legal rights, "It should be allowed but you are still wrong as a human being" is absolutely useful. And the gay rights movement is in no way in a position to refuse that kind of tolerance; when it comes to determining whether or not they even have the majority of public opinion on their side, they're still within the margin of error, with support increasing about 2% per year. That's a long way to go from "possible majority" to full acceptance, and I would rather get there before I'm old enough to retire, thank you. If that means being nice to people who are literally making a sincere effort to tolerate me and mine, then I have no problem doing that.
If the 50% of the population who don't support gay rights believed that gays should be legally equal, no matter what their moral status, we'd have all the rights we've spent decades fighting for.
You probably can't force social acceptance on individuals by yelling at them; and trying to do so risks losing that person's support in the more important realm, the battle for legal rights.