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 a pluralistic society it is all about tolerance and equality but equality doesn't mean that they think you're totally right.
The statement isn't a statement of support for the gay community. It's a statement in support of a society where religion starts acting like less of an asshole and more of a proper member of a plural society. While the second one isn't the dream it is way better than what we currently have. It is also probably the best case in which we respect a right to religion.
In a pluralistic society, we have to respect her right to freedom of religion.
At the same time, we are also free to decide that her beliefs (regardless of whether those beliefs are religiously-based or not) make her an asshole.
Wow so a second republican, though to be fair Kirk suffered a brain trauma and has been acting a lot better. I guess coming close to meeting your God tends to give someone perspective.
I would like some money because these are artisanal nuggets of wisdom philistine.
You would still need 60+ to get anything from the senate, and it still would die in the Boehner house. I mean its nice to see, but at this point it amounts to just showing how far we've come.
I would like some money because these are artisanal nuggets of wisdom philistine.
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.
I take issue with the way it legitimizes bigotry while arguing for tolerance.
Sure, people are going to be bigots, but it's a shitty thing to say as a measure of support for the LGBT community that you are okay with people being bigots as long as they're passive about it.
Also, the statement admits her own bigotry, and would argue that she thinks her bigotry is tolerable because she tolerates the existence of LGBT people.
Yes, thoughtcrime must be punished
It's not enough for her to not hate you, you need her approval too.
Listen people, this is freedom: I reluctantly concede that you're allowed to the do disgusting heathen things I loathe and abominate but that don't actually harm me, in return for your reluctantly conceding that I'm allowed to do the disgusting heathen things you loathe and abominate but don't actually harm you.
At no point is "I also have to stop thinking you're a loathesome heathen" a part of the deal. She's entitled to her beliefs: she believes that homosexual marriage is wrong. I personally think that she's a fool for doing that, but you are making an absolute fucking spectacle of yourselves by demanding that she abandon her sincere beliefs before her support (or at least withdrawl of opposition) is worth anything. Not only is it not part of the deal, it's counter-productive to your stated goals because you're playing directly into the hands of the assholes who claim that gay marriage is an attack on their beliefs. By, you know, demanding that they abandon their beliefs as well as conceding that they're not entitled to force them on you.
If someone tells you "I think gay marriage is wrong but I won't oppose your legal right to do it" then that's all the win you're entitled to. That's all you get. Deal with it. After that, you're not chasing freedom, you're chasing self-justification.
You would still need 60+ to get anything from the senate, and it still would die in the Boehner house. I mean its nice to see, but at this point it amounts to just showing how far we've come.
"Boehner House" sounds like a frat house that Dean Bitterman is enraged about.
..snip...
If someone tells you "I think gay marriage is wrong but I won't oppose your legal right to do it" then that's all the win you're entitled to. That's all you get. Deal with it. After that, you're not chasing freedom, you're chasing self-justification.
The question in a case like this is: does that person still vote for politicians that oppose that right? Do they give money to churches or other organizations that actively oppose gay marriage? If so, that kind of support is better than nothing, but it isn't very useful.
CommunistCow on
No, I am not really communist. Yes, it is weird that I use this name.
And that is what she is being called out on? Her words.
She doesn't hate, she just disagrees with a lifestyle.
Wait, what? What does it mean to "agree with anothers lifestyle" exactly?
I would compare it to disapproval toward premarital sex. You can feel that having premarital sex is wrong, but you don't necessarily hate the people who are doing it, or feel the need to legislate against it.
Now I understand it's NOT the same thing at all. Sexual orientation is a part of you, whereas having premarital sex is just a choice or action you take. Furthermore, the very premise still allows for straight people to have condoned sex (within marriage) whereas; no matter what a gay individual does, their sexual relations are considered immoral.
But your average religious person who is supportive of homosexual rights is usually dealing with massive cognitive dissonance. On the one hand they are capable of seeing you for the human being that you are; one who is deserving of equal rights. On the other hand, their religion is telling them that your lifestyle is immoral. For a person in this state of mind, the best I can say is they feel the same towards you as they do towards a couple having premarital sex. It's not the same thing, but they feel the same way towards the both of you.
Having been a staunch Catholic as of a few years ago (not anymore, thank god science for college and getting out of the house), I went through this stage myself. On the one hand, not only did I feel empathy towards the LGBT community, but I also felt that while my religion said it was wrong, non-Catholics have no obligation to live according to my religious beliefs. So I felt that acting on your homosexuality was wrong in the same way that premarital sex was wrong, but that in no way diminishes you as a person. Now, having left that stage, I can look back on it and recognize the cognitive dissonance at play. It doesn't make sense for me to believe that something that is as a part of you as your eye color to be bad and yet believe that it doesn't reflect in any way on you as a person. But at the time, I had to very much compartmentalize these beliefs.
I guess my point is: don't instantly dismiss people like my past self. They might not be as disapproving of you as you assume. (Really, religion just sucks in general, but what are you gonna do....do we really want to open up THAT can of worms and try to outlaw religion?)
This doesn't have much to do with the initial facebook quote that sparked this conversation. Just a response to the general sentiment I saw expressed over the last few pages.
Guess Mark Kirk decided he'd had enough of being a Senator
He's not going to win IL in 2016 by being anti-gay.
primary
Doesn't do him much good to win the primary if he's sunk in the general. And I wouldn't be surprised if there were a clown car of Republican challengers who split the anti-Kirk vote and he made it through with 40% or something.
You're thinking of Ben Nelson. Bill Nelson is bad, but not an asshole.
Bill Nelson is not bad! Not every state is an enlightened Northwest paradise, and considering we've got to deal with an enormous population of both rednecks and old conservative Jews we're doing pretty well.
Now I understand it's NOT the same thing at all. Sexual orientation is a part of you, whereas having premarital sex is just a choice or action you take. Furthermore, the very premise still allows for straight people to have condoned sex (within marriage) whereas; no matter what a gay individual does, their sexual relations are considered immoral.
Right, this is why the viewpoint is important. As long as people believe that they're wrong for who they are there will be problems. I have this discussion with folks quite often, and sometimes it helps people out.
Those complaining about my flippant comments instead of tackling the issue are just being silly. It is a forum post quoting a facebook comment of someone who I have no contact or relation. What the hell do you expect, me to debate with the quote? Fuck off.
About all we can do here is discuss what may or may not be wrong with the message, which we were doing.
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.
I take issue with the way it legitimizes bigotry while arguing for tolerance.
Sure, people are going to be bigots, but it's a shitty thing to say as a measure of support for the LGBT community that you are okay with people being bigots as long as they're passive about it.
Also, the statement admits her own bigotry, and would argue that she thinks her bigotry is tolerable because she tolerates the existence of LGBT people.
Ah yes. The bigotry of advocating loving people and not hating them.
That horrible woman. How dare she?
"Hating the sin and loving the sinner" is the line that's been busted out for decades right before the speaker starts doing some really heinous shit.
Now, maybe you can say that she didn't actually mean anything heinous in her post and she's just a bit clueless.
But "hating the sin and loving the sinner" has historically worked out as well for gay people as "separate but equal" worked out for African Americans. Being pro-equality doesn't really gain you any points if you're also pro-separation. And hating the sin inherently means you reject homosexuality as an identity; instead it's an action, a sin, and if you stop doing gay things you'll no longer be gay, no longer be a sinner. And since you refuse to stop sinning, that means it's your own fault when hate heads your way.
That's why people are telling her to fuck off, because she's using phrases in her "support" of gay rights that have historically been used time after time to legitimize hatred of homosexuals, and this thread picks up on that. It's not showing support for equal protection under the law, it's her being a moral coward. Despite obviously knowing gay people in her life she still isn't willing to say that them loving someone isn't sinful, but she's also afraid to own up to actually saying that. So yeah, her social circle should be calling her out.
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.
If someone tells you "I think gay marriage is wrong but I won't oppose your legal right to do it" then that's all the win you're entitled to. That's all you get. Deal with it. After that, you're not chasing freedom, you're chasing self-justification.
No, it absolutely is not and you're deluded if you think anyone would settle for that level of shit.
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.
I take issue with the way it legitimizes bigotry while arguing for tolerance.
Sure, people are going to be bigots, but it's a shitty thing to say as a measure of support for the LGBT community that you are okay with people being bigots as long as they're passive about it.
Also, the statement admits her own bigotry, and would argue that she thinks her bigotry is tolerable because she tolerates the existence of LGBT people.
Ah yes. The bigotry of advocating loving people and not hating them.
That horrible woman. How dare she?
"Hating the sin and loving the sinner" is the line that's been busted out for decades right before the speaker starts doing some really heinous shit.
Now, maybe you can say that she didn't actually mean anything heinous in her post and she's just a bit clueless.
But "hating the sin and loving the sinner" has historically worked out as well for gay people as "separate but equal" worked out for African Americans. Being pro-equality doesn't really gain you any points if you're also pro-separation. And hating the sin inherently means you reject homosexuality as an identity; instead it's an action, a sin, and if you stop doing gay things you'll no longer be gay, no longer be a sinner. And since you refuse to stop sinning, that means it's your own fault when hate heads your way.
That's why people are telling her to fuck off, because she's using phrases in her "support" of gay rights that have historically been used time after time to legitimize hatred of homosexuals, and this thread picks up on that. It's not showing support for equal protection under the law, it's her being a moral coward. Despite obviously knowing gay people in her life she still isn't willing to say that them loving someone isn't sinful, but she's also afraid to own up to actually saying that. So yeah, her social circle should be calling her out.
Listen people, this is freedom: I reluctantly concede that you're allowed to the do disgusting heathen things I loathe and abominate but that don't actually harm me, in return for your reluctantly conceding that I'm allowed to do the disgusting heathen things you loathe and abominate but don't actually harm you.
At no point is "I also have to stop thinking you're a loathesome heathen" a part of the deal. She's entitled to her beliefs: she believes that homosexual marriage is wrong. I personally think that she's a fool for doing that, but you are making an absolute fucking spectacle of yourselves by demanding that she abandon her sincere beliefs before her support (or at least withdrawl of opposition) is worth anything. Not only is it not part of the deal, it's counter-productive to your stated goals because you're playing directly into the hands of the assholes who claim that gay marriage is an attack on their beliefs. By, you know, demanding that they abandon their beliefs as well as conceding that they're not entitled to force them on you.
If someone tells you "I think gay marriage is wrong but I won't oppose your legal right to do it" then that's all the win you're entitled to. That's all you get. Deal with it. After that, you're not chasing freedom, you're chasing self-justification.
She does have the freedom to keep her beliefs and we have the freedom to tell her its fucked up. You don't get a cookie for being slightly less barbaric than homophobic assholes which you still agree with in theory.
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.
+1
Options
AstaerethIn the belly of the beastRegistered Userregular
Yes, giving her congratulations for supporting gay marriage is like giving people congratulations for not going around and raping babies.
She's meeting a bare minimum bar for basic human decency; well done.
Your "minimum bar" is cleared by approximately 50% of the US population. If half the population raped babies, you bet I would congratulate the other half, or at least not tell them off for not also accepting all babies into their heart. Or saying, "That baby's kinda sexy, but I would never act on that."
This is a Thanatos metaphor, where far too much hyperbole is only just barely enough.
Let's just move on.
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.
This is a Thanatos metaphor, where far too much hyperbole is only just barely enough.
Let's just move on.
Hey in a thread where someone saying you should love people regardless of your religious beliefs is akin to calling those people an abomination why hold back?
+1
Options
ElldrenIs a woman dammitceterum censeoRegistered Userregular
I take issue with the way it legitimizes bigotry while arguing for tolerance.
Sure, people are going to be bigots, but it's a shitty thing to say as a measure of support for the LGBT community that you are okay with people being bigots as long as they're passive about it.
Also, the statement admits her own bigotry, and would argue that she thinks her bigotry is tolerable because she tolerates the existence of LGBT people.
See?
Not condoning bigotry is entirely what the fight over the word marriage is about.
Except at no point did she call them lesser people.
Not approving of a person doing X thing does not mean you think they're horrific abominations who must be stoned. People are attributing a shit ton more hyperbole to a statement than it has. Which is pretty much none. Unless anyone in here thinks anyone who does something they personally don't approve of is subhuman garbage.
Quid on
0
Options
ElldrenIs a woman dammitceterum censeoRegistered Userregular
Except at no point did she call them lesser people.
Not approving of a person doing X thing does not mean you think they're horrific abominations who must be stoned. People are attributing a shit ton more hyperbole to a statement than it has. Which is pretty much none. Unless anyone in here thinks anyone who does something they personally don't approve of is subhuman garbage.
She is essentially saying "Yall gon burn in hell, but that's okay"
Or she's saying nothing
In no case is what she's saying supportive
fuck gendered marketing
+3
Options
AtomikaLive fast and get fucked or whateverRegistered Userregular
Except at no point did she call them lesser people.
Not approving of a person doing X thing does not mean you think they're horrific abominations who must be stoned. People are attributing a shit ton more hyperbole to a statement than it has. Which is pretty much none. Unless anyone in here thinks anyone who does something they personally don't approve of is subhuman garbage.
At this point you seem to be almost willfully being unable to entertain the logic offered by your opposition.
Which is weird, especially after I acknowledged that her convictions are religious in nature and she subscribes to "hate the sin, love the sinner" w/r/t LGBT issues.
Except at no point did she call them lesser people.
Not approving of a person doing X thing does not mean you think they're horrific abominations who must be stoned. People are attributing a shit ton more hyperbole to a statement than it has. Which is pretty much none. Unless anyone in here thinks anyone who does something they personally don't approve of is subhuman garbage.
She is essentially saying "Yall gon burn in hell, but that's okay"
Or she's saying nothing
In no case is what she's saying supportive
Only in this thread could "Don't hate gay people" be considered not supportive.
0
Options
AtomikaLive fast and get fucked or whateverRegistered Userregular
Except at no point did she call them lesser people.
Not approving of a person doing X thing does not mean you think they're horrific abominations who must be stoned. People are attributing a shit ton more hyperbole to a statement than it has. Which is pretty much none. Unless anyone in here thinks anyone who does something they personally don't approve of is subhuman garbage.
She is essentially saying "Yall gon burn in hell, but that's okay"
Or she's saying nothing
In no case is what she's saying supportive
Only in this thread could "Don't hate gay people" be considered not supportive.
when it's appended with "even though they do those terrible things gay people do" it isn't
Except at no point did she call them lesser people.
Not approving of a person doing X thing does not mean you think they're horrific abominations who must be stoned. People are attributing a shit ton more hyperbole to a statement than it has. Which is pretty much none. Unless anyone in here thinks anyone who does something they personally don't approve of is subhuman garbage.
She is essentially saying "Yall gon burn in hell, but that's okay"
Or she's saying nothing
In no case is what she's saying supportive
Only in this thread could "Don't hate gay people" be considered not supportive.
Is it really that supportive if you think they're committing a sin, will be roasted in hell for eternity and don't deserve equal rights that heterosexual couples do?
This is a Thanatos metaphor, where far too much hyperbole is only just barely enough.
Let's just move on.
Hey in a thread where someone saying you should love people regardless of your religious beliefs is akin to calling those people an abomination why hold back?
And if that's all she was saying nobody would have a problem with it, but it wasn't, so get off your high horse there champ. You've already had multiple hyperbole-free explanations as to why her post would touch so many nerves, try responding to one of those instead.
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.
Except at no point did she call them lesser people.
Not approving of a person doing X thing does not mean you think they're horrific abominations who must be stoned. People are attributing a shit ton more hyperbole to a statement than it has. Which is pretty much none. Unless anyone in here thinks anyone who does something they personally don't approve of is subhuman garbage.
She is essentially saying "Yall gon burn in hell, but that's okay"
Or she's saying nothing
In no case is what she's saying supportive
Only in this thread could "Don't hate gay people" be considered not supportive.
when it's appended with "even though they do those terrible things gay people do" it isn't
Quote where she said they do terrible things. I can wait.
Posts
3DS: 1607-3034-6970
At the same time, we are also free to decide that her beliefs (regardless of whether those beliefs are religiously-based or not) make her an asshole.
pleasepaypreacher.net
Wow, that's 49 total! Only one one more and the Respect for Marriage Act can finally be implementedburied by Sen. FYGM (R-Wherever)
pleasepaypreacher.net
edit: how did I not see that above me? I'm sorry.
Steam
pleasepaypreacher.net
PSN/Steam/NNID: SyphonBlue | BNet: SyphonBlue#1126
Yes, thoughtcrime must be punished
It's not enough for her to not hate you, you need her approval too.
At no point is "I also have to stop thinking you're a loathesome heathen" a part of the deal. She's entitled to her beliefs: she believes that homosexual marriage is wrong. I personally think that she's a fool for doing that, but you are making an absolute fucking spectacle of yourselves by demanding that she abandon her sincere beliefs before her support (or at least withdrawl of opposition) is worth anything. Not only is it not part of the deal, it's counter-productive to your stated goals because you're playing directly into the hands of the assholes who claim that gay marriage is an attack on their beliefs. By, you know, demanding that they abandon their beliefs as well as conceding that they're not entitled to force them on you.
If someone tells you "I think gay marriage is wrong but I won't oppose your legal right to do it" then that's all the win you're entitled to. That's all you get. Deal with it. After that, you're not chasing freedom, you're chasing self-justification.
primary
PSN/Steam/NNID: SyphonBlue | BNet: SyphonBlue#1126
"Boehner House" sounds like a frat house that Dean Bitterman is enraged about.
The question in a case like this is: does that person still vote for politicians that oppose that right? Do they give money to churches or other organizations that actively oppose gay marriage? If so, that kind of support is better than nothing, but it isn't very useful.
You're thinking of Ben Nelson. Bill Nelson is bad, but not an asshole.
I would compare it to disapproval toward premarital sex. You can feel that having premarital sex is wrong, but you don't necessarily hate the people who are doing it, or feel the need to legislate against it.
Now I understand it's NOT the same thing at all. Sexual orientation is a part of you, whereas having premarital sex is just a choice or action you take. Furthermore, the very premise still allows for straight people to have condoned sex (within marriage) whereas; no matter what a gay individual does, their sexual relations are considered immoral.
But your average religious person who is supportive of homosexual rights is usually dealing with massive cognitive dissonance. On the one hand they are capable of seeing you for the human being that you are; one who is deserving of equal rights. On the other hand, their religion is telling them that your lifestyle is immoral. For a person in this state of mind, the best I can say is they feel the same towards you as they do towards a couple having premarital sex. It's not the same thing, but they feel the same way towards the both of you.
Having been a staunch Catholic as of a few years ago (not anymore, thank god science for college and getting out of the house), I went through this stage myself. On the one hand, not only did I feel empathy towards the LGBT community, but I also felt that while my religion said it was wrong, non-Catholics have no obligation to live according to my religious beliefs. So I felt that acting on your homosexuality was wrong in the same way that premarital sex was wrong, but that in no way diminishes you as a person. Now, having left that stage, I can look back on it and recognize the cognitive dissonance at play. It doesn't make sense for me to believe that something that is as a part of you as your eye color to be bad and yet believe that it doesn't reflect in any way on you as a person. But at the time, I had to very much compartmentalize these beliefs.
I guess my point is: don't instantly dismiss people like my past self. They might not be as disapproving of you as you assume. (Really, religion just sucks in general, but what are you gonna do....do we really want to open up THAT can of worms and try to outlaw religion?)
This doesn't have much to do with the initial facebook quote that sparked this conversation. Just a response to the general sentiment I saw expressed over the last few pages.
Doesn't do him much good to win the primary if he's sunk in the general. And I wouldn't be surprised if there were a clown car of Republican challengers who split the anti-Kirk vote and he made it through with 40% or something.
Bill Nelson is not bad! Not every state is an enlightened Northwest paradise, and considering we've got to deal with an enormous population of both rednecks and old conservative Jews we're doing pretty well.
Right, this is why the viewpoint is important. As long as people believe that they're wrong for who they are there will be problems. I have this discussion with folks quite often, and sometimes it helps people out.
Those complaining about my flippant comments instead of tackling the issue are just being silly. It is a forum post quoting a facebook comment of someone who I have no contact or relation. What the hell do you expect, me to debate with the quote? Fuck off.
About all we can do here is discuss what may or may not be wrong with the message, which we were doing.
"Hating the sin and loving the sinner" is the line that's been busted out for decades right before the speaker starts doing some really heinous shit.
Now, maybe you can say that she didn't actually mean anything heinous in her post and she's just a bit clueless.
But "hating the sin and loving the sinner" has historically worked out as well for gay people as "separate but equal" worked out for African Americans. Being pro-equality doesn't really gain you any points if you're also pro-separation. And hating the sin inherently means you reject homosexuality as an identity; instead it's an action, a sin, and if you stop doing gay things you'll no longer be gay, no longer be a sinner. And since you refuse to stop sinning, that means it's your own fault when hate heads your way.
That's why people are telling her to fuck off, because she's using phrases in her "support" of gay rights that have historically been used time after time to legitimize hatred of homosexuals, and this thread picks up on that. It's not showing support for equal protection under the law, it's her being a moral coward. Despite obviously knowing gay people in her life she still isn't willing to say that them loving someone isn't sinful, but she's also afraid to own up to actually saying that. So yeah, her social circle should be calling her out.
No, it absolutely is not and you're deluded if you think anyone would settle for that level of shit.
I'm not racist, but
PSN/Steam/NNID: SyphonBlue | BNet: SyphonBlue#1126
She does have the freedom to keep her beliefs and we have the freedom to tell her its fucked up. You don't get a cookie for being slightly less barbaric than homophobic assholes which you still agree with in theory.
She's meeting a bare minimum bar for basic human decency; well done.
The harder the rain, honey, the sweeter the sun.
As a baby rapist,
Your "minimum bar" is cleared by approximately 50% of the US population. If half the population raped babies, you bet I would congratulate the other half, or at least not tell them off for not also accepting all babies into their heart. Or saying, "That baby's kinda sexy, but I would never act on that."
...this is a weird metaphor.
Let's just move on.
Hey in a thread where someone saying you should love people regardless of your religious beliefs is akin to calling those people an abomination why hold back?
I think this was underappreciated
Much better analogy
Not approving of a person doing X thing does not mean you think they're horrific abominations who must be stoned. People are attributing a shit ton more hyperbole to a statement than it has. Which is pretty much none. Unless anyone in here thinks anyone who does something they personally don't approve of is subhuman garbage.
She is essentially saying "Yall gon burn in hell, but that's okay"
Or she's saying nothing
In no case is what she's saying supportive
At this point you seem to be almost willfully being unable to entertain the logic offered by your opposition.
Which is weird, especially after I acknowledged that her convictions are religious in nature and she subscribes to "hate the sin, love the sinner" w/r/t LGBT issues.
Only in this thread could "Don't hate gay people" be considered not supportive.
I continue to be amazed that "Don't hate gay people" is the extent of the message you'll allow yourself to acknowledge.
when it's appended with "even though they do those terrible things gay people do" it isn't
Is it really that supportive if you think they're committing a sin, will be roasted in hell for eternity and don't deserve equal rights that heterosexual couples do?
And if that's all she was saying nobody would have a problem with it, but it wasn't, so get off your high horse there champ. You've already had multiple hyperbole-free explanations as to why her post would touch so many nerves, try responding to one of those instead.
Quote where she said they do terrible things. I can wait.