From this article: Gay activist Shane Windmeyer befriends Dan Cathy
I think the citizens of this country as well as our representatives could learn something from these two.
I never doubted Cathy could be a decent human being on a one-on-one level. But as the writer of the article admits, the guy does still want to deny him a human right, the right to marry. He’s the sort of guy you could have a beer with, but you don’t want him making any decisions about your life.
Interesting. Seems to support what I (and many other LGBT+ advocates) have been saying for years: this isn’t really a fight against bad people, it’s a fight against ignorance and invisibility.
I still disagree with Cathy and still think his actions are harmful but I do respect his courage with regard to listening to and understanding those he disagrees with. I wish that spirit was more common on both sides of issues.
It’s a simple concept, really. I don’t have to be like you to like you.
Cathy still wants to prevent people from marrying who they want if they are of the same sex? He’s still bigot. This is just the next version of “some of my best friends are black”.
Eh. “Bigot” is an invective, not a particularly useful term. As somebody who is a strong supporter of SSM and has been since…ever, I realize that not all who oppose it (even vocally) are “bigots.” They’re wrong.
Are they sometimes monstrous, ugly, awful people? Yep. So are many people on my side of the argument (although, of course, I like to think fewer).
The article suggests that the writer is the first gay person Cathy’s had a dialogue with. It’s pretty darn easy to oppose rights for a faceless, nebulous class of person you’ve never met.
The thing about “some of my best friends are X” is that…if it’s true, that DOES bleed over into improving the situation for X. People don’t change their minds overnight nearly enough, especially not when religious convictions are involved.
But I’m pretty sure giving every conservative, anti-SSM mouthpiece a gay best friend would pay pretty big dividends for the movement pretty quickly.
They think that gay people are not deserving of all the rights that everybody else has. I cannot see how this can be without them thinking less of gay people, and hence being bigoted.
Do you want to prevent people from marrying more than one person at a time? If so, you’re a bigot by your own definition.
Having gay friends doesn’t mean one can’t be bigoted against gays
- I don’t care if people marry more than one person at a time.
- Even if I did, I would not be a bigot unless I only denied that right to some people, and not to all.
It only worked out because Dan made sure to wear his buttplug that day. Otherwise he’d have spent the whole time worrying.
Believe it or not, many anti-SSM people actually do internalize that “love the sinner, hate the sin” rhetoric. They genuinely, in their hearts, believe that “being gay” is a thing you do, not who you are. They believe they can still respect the personhood of gay people while condemning being gay.
You and I realize that being gay is totally, totally fine, and can be totally innate and unchangable in a person’s identity. To us, anti-SSM folks seem obviously bigoted. But it’s important to realize that (in many cases), it’s not really accurate. They don’t think gay people are BAD, they just don’t understand what it means, remain ignorant for various reasons (some intentional, some due to indoctrination or proximity), and don’t feel like doing that naughty gay thing should be “endorsed” by the government.
Are there simple bigots as well? Sure, but to Hell with 'em. You can’t argue with bigots. They’re bigots. Cathy’s may just be indoctrinated and ignorant. He might not be a lost cause. That’s a good thing to find.
Believe it or not, that doesn’t make them unbigoted.
People can be personally likable and still be bigoted. Or worse than a bigot, like a psychopath or a serial killer for example. Likable and good aren’t synonyms.
I have no idea what logic leads anyone to believe that gay marriage is a right. It is entirely predicated on redefining marriage. Civil union with rights equal to marriage is more appropriate. Why not just come up with a different name for what “is” different? Like Kwanza was invented. Gays could call it xyz. “Bob and Steve are getting xyz’d.” or “Are you filing married/xyz’d filing jointly?”
Because marriage was originally a religious act that was taken over by the government. The government of the United States, based on the Constitution, may not use religious dogma to determine how it treats its citizens. If a person is eligible to marry, the government should not have the ability to deny them the partner of their choice just because it is not endorsed by one or another religions.
To say “gay people can call it XYZ, but they can’t call it marriage” only means that the declared, committed, monogamous relationships of gay men and women are considered “other than” or “separate from” the declared, committed, monogamous relationships of straight men and women, and this is definitely a situation where separate becomes the same as unequal.
Besides which, marriage describes the relationship perfectly. Whether you like it or not, the rest of us are going to use the word to describe two gay men or two gay women who make a public declaration of their committed, romantic, sexual pairing the same way we use it to describe a heterosexual couple doing the same thing.
xx
You are a very stupid individual.
Please elaborate.