I wonder if the slaves themselves understood that there was no moral difference between the master that whipped you every day and the master that didn’t. I wonder if they had a preference , since there’s no difference.
We’re scumbags! Why should we care if it’s fair to judge people like that?
Well now that you mention it , that makes sense. And self righteous scumbags may be the scummiest of all.
Sorry, I don’t subscribe to your horrifying Christian “morality” so I do not believe that “we are all scumbags” (and the consequent abandonment of all values that it leads to, as in your post).
Your argument for tolerating anti-gay-marriage people in civilized society should probably not literally be “come on, it will only reduce you to the status of a relatively well-treated slave.” You’re making my point for me.
I never suggested tolerating anti gay marriage people. I just think equating them to people who bash gays with baseball bats is ridiculous.
Again, I understand it as an ideal philosophical point , but the fact is that real live humans have flaws as well as positive traits. You do, I do , they do. I’ll play my role in pointing out the injustice of opposing SSM and call it bigotry because it applies. The goal , I hope, is to improve as a society, not to condemn one another and play comparative flaws by painting others as scumbags.
I am an agnostic not a Christian. I’m speaking about the reality of the human condition. You can single out one issue and condemn others as immoral scumbags if that works for you, but human’s are about more than one issue.
If all who don’t see it your way are scumbags because of this one issue then we are all scumbags on one moral issue or another, unless you’re the only perfect human alive. I feel safe in declaring you aren’t.
I have to join the chorus of people strongly disagreeing with you.
First of all, opposing gay marriage (particularly if you support gay civil unions, adoption, allowing gays to be teachers and soldiers, etc.) and hitting people with bats aren’t even in the same LEAGUE as each other, morally and ethically. Secondly, I am quite sure that there are people who believe gays and lesbians are fully equal human beings, but still oppose gay marriage. I don’t think there’s any LOGICAL reason to oppose gay marriage, but people believe plenty of stuff that’s illogical, and opposing gay marriage without having any desire to kill or hurt gays is one such thing.
How could this sentence even have meaning? By definition, if you want the government to provide a certain benefit to some people and not others, and the have-not class is defined solely by whether they are gay, then you do not believe that gays should be “fully equal.” It’s getting to the point where we have to just ignore that words have meanings in order to accommodate the ridiculous “be civil to people who want to destroy you” position.
The concept of marriage is very emotionally bound to the heterosexual concept of sex and self (at least in modern day America).
Because of this, the idea of extending marriage to those of the same sex has an emotional quality that must be dealt with. This leads inevitably to situations where heterosexual people who know and accept and even love homosexual people still have an issue with same sex marriage.
It is taking more time than I want it to, but these good people are gradually understanding that their concept of marriage is circumscribed by their own personal expectations.
Hatred for The Other is never a good thing.
Are you saying anyone who opposed SSM, for whatever reason, is no different than someone who actively hunts for members of the G&L community with a baseball bat?
You did a similar thing in the CFA thread when you claimed CFA was out to kill you.
I know people who voted for Prop 8 in California. They were voting their conscious, the same conscious that would prevent them from participating in, or condoning violence towards any human being, regardless of sexual preference.
Their conscience (the word fluent English speakers might be looking for here) can go fuck itself. I’m sure every member of the SS was sure that killing Jews was the right thing to do, every 9-11 hijacker knew that Allah was waiting to reward him for his virtue, and so on. Immorality is immorality no matter how sincerely the half-human who thinks it’s something else believes in his own horseshit.
Homophobia is homophobia, and in real life, people who are monomaniacal about maintaining marriage inequality are very likely to engage in violence or discrimination against homosexuals in other ways. People love to play characters on the Internet where they are oh-so tolerant but just want gays to have a “civil union” because of some bullshit reason. Those people are being dishonest. They don’t really exist when they’re not on a liberal Democrat-dominated message board, they vote for every straight-up anti-gay initiative out there, and their opinions and vocabulary change in a mighty way when they are hanging out with the other Christians. You do NOT want to be the gay job applicant or gay child of most of the “I think you should be fully equal except for…” people in this thread, believe me.
I love this equivocation–“violence or discrimination.” They might be likely to roll their eyes at two gay men kissing, or they might beat up a gay man with a baseball bat, same diff!
Look, most of us agree with you that homophobes show their homophobia in multiple channels. The disagreement we’re having is your assertion that there’s no significant moral difference between casting a vote like an asshole and beating someone with a baseball bat like an asshole. Both acts are asshole acts, but there’s a tremendous difference between them as a matter of degree.
Your arguments are so tainted with hate that it’s impossible to find anything you say credible.
{To Left Hand of Dorkness): Isn’t it just another example of how unseriously gay rights are taken by the self-satisfied liberal set? When some public figure gets caught using the n-word, they are ostracized immediately, without a bunch of bizarre circumlocution about how much better they are than people who actually commit violence against black people. And this is as it should be–racism is unacceptable, period.
Yet, with homophobia, the amount of leeway given is astounding…think marriage rights only belong to straight people? At least he doesn’t believe gays are going to hell! Oh wait, he does? Well at least he didn’t kick his gay son out of the house! Oh wait, he did? Well at least he didn’t kill him! Now presenting this year’s winner of the So Awesome For Not Being a Literal Murderer Medal!
I don’t draw these distinctions for the same reason other people don’t draw them about other forms of bigotry–because the only purpose in doing so is to excuse the inexcusable.
I don’t know what “hate” means and you don’t either, beyond the obvious fact that it’s a magic word one can use to avoid a substantive analysis of anything.
You’re spewing the same hate you claim the “liberal Christians” are. You’re just aiming it at a different target. Such an approach does your cause no good.
You understood it well enough to use it several times in the CFA thread.
Really? Can you link to a post?
This is the most inane thing posted in this thread so far, and that’s saying something. Like, yeah, I as a homosexual/rational human being dislike homophobes because they have chosen to do evil things! That’s not morally equivalent to them disliking me for the reasons they do! If you think it is then you are just Exhibit A in why the idiotic attempts to analyze who “hates” whom as if the concept even had meaning are the worst form of rhetorical gasbagging.
Your analogy is great, in exactly the way you think it isn’t. When Michael Richards used the n-word, people said things like “I know he said he’s sorry, but he should do something for charity.” When a black man is dragged to death, the killer is executed. Nobody but nobody says there’s no difference between the two acts.