When I say it’s the same I’m referring to the harsh judgement that says, “I’m righteous and my judgement of you is righteous” or the, IMO, unconscious position of moral superiority. Whether the thought is, “you’re a bigot and I am superior” or “You’re a sinner and I am superior” it’s the same essential human failing.
Look at the fool who confronted some worker bee at the drive through and posted it on you tube. I’m sure he felt righteous in standing up for the cause but he was essentially just being a dick
I’ve come to the conclusion that confrontation is an essential part of personal growth and societal growth. While we confront others with our righteous views , we should also be looking within for opportunities to refine our own views and methods. As we confront others, we confront ourselves.
It’s human to be mistaken sometimes. It’s human to get angry and occasionally lash out. It’s good to remember that we likely have the same flaws we are pointing out in others, even if it’s on a separate issue.
Can we passionately oppose someone without seeing them as a bad person. Can we strongly oppose and be prepared to forgive , knowing that we will need forgiveness at some point.
As a former Christian I keep thinking about the passages about the truth setting us free and seeking the truth. I agree, there is a lot of information available and while I understand the emotional reluctance to let go of portions of our belief system {perhaps for fear it will all collapse} I have a hard time being patient with people who insist on ignoring fats and rational arguments and cling to semantic games to maintain an unsupportable position.
The label of bigot doesn’t feel good. I get that, but you can’t escape it simply by saying “I have a right to my opinion” Or there’s the concept of respecting people’s beliefs. I respect people’s right to hold whatever beliefs they will. Someone could believe them world is flat and the sun revolves around , but why would we respect that?
If someone believes God wants them to feed the poor very few people will object and can respect their efforts even if we don’t intellectually agree with their motives. If someone believes God wants them to harm the innocent , should we respect that?
Separate but equal certainly proved that didn’t it?
The whole idea that the institution of marriage needs to be protected from SS unions is emotion and religious based. The idea that marriage and by extension society will somehow be harmed or made less by calling SS unions marriage has no basis in fact whatsoever. Personally I think the idea that the details of some other couples marriage can somehow dimish mine is emotional paranoia.
The whole things screams of “not as good as” or not as sacred" or not as meaningful" which are all insults just as fully as saying an interracial couple doesn’t have a real marriage or a divorced person can’t remarry.
True. But your personal objection to gay marriage is that it will, in the long run, be damaging to the health and stability of our society. That could only be possible if gay relationships were flawed in some manner that straight relationships are not. On top of that, there’s your recent assertions that homosexual relationships are, by their nature, less fulfilling than heterosexual relationships - again, a clear statement that homosexual relationships are, in your view, “less than” hetero relationships.
“Flawed” is a loaded word. A cow is “flawed” as a member of the family horses. It does not mean that cows are “flawed” beings generally. That’s pure logic. Factually correct. So, I repeat: “Different” does not equal “less than”.
:rolleyes: You say bad example, then do nothing to show why it’s a bad example. Instead you introduce your emotionalism into the equation. That’s bad argumentation on your part. Now you may not like it, but that’s just too bad: the universal laws of logic apply to arguments universally. Imagine that!
Please tell me you’re not saying that homosexuals are flawed as members of the family human beings. I know that can’t be what you’re saying. But it sounds like that’s what you’re saying. Would you please try again so I don’t have to hate you?
First , that’s not what I was saying. Second, don’t get hung up in the word flawed. 1) I didn’t bring it up. And 2) it is a loaded word. It can go to judgement (usually) or simply to criteria (seldom). Like in my horse example. There is nothing inherently better or worse about horses or cows. While they are both large four-legged animals, there are differences. One is not lesser than the other. If you tried to judge a cow by those things that define horseness, then the cow comes up short. And vice versa. I was sating to Miller, that that would be the only way I see his word, “flawed” even being applicable.
Again, how we got here. Elvis said:
And I simply made the factual point that “different” does not equal “lesser than”
And yet even a child has no problems with saying “Mommy, those two horses are married!” and ten minutes later saying “Mommy, those two cows are married!”
Insisting that there are such things as horse-marriage and cow-unions is a conscious, arbitrary, and needless act.
What’s more interesting is that anyone questioned the validity of the statement I made. There’s a lot of “but this”, and “but that”, but no demonstration of me being incorrect. Maybe we all agree. Excellent!
Forgot this: a child also has no problem saying, “There’s a monster under my bed”.
Red heads are different than blondes . . . but have exactly the same rights.
Short people are different than tall people . . . but have exactly the same rights.
Asians are different than black people . . . but have exactly the same rights.
Gay people are different than straight people . . . .