He’s not Hitler.
He’s a guy who sees a law that says “if a Black person is on a full bus, and a White person gets on, the Black person has to give up his seat and stand” and says “I support that law.” We don’t call that Hitler, maybe “Typical Mid Century Racist”.
Laws like that haven’t been in vogue in 50 years, until now. Laws that are crafted specifically to ensure that particular individuals are NOT granted rights that other people get.
Well, you are almost “there” so I won’t put you on ignore 
Opps. I realized this sounded like gay people don’t have any sense!
What I meant was more along the lines of “if some black folks are against affirmative action or some rich people are for higher taxes for the rich” those folks get a bit more cred than than everybody else. Or in otherwords.,if the position you support does not benifit you and or might actaully hurt you in some tangible way then I gotta tip my hat your way.
I get it, and it’s a judgment call, I guess. What was the couple’s position in 2008, when both McCain and Obama were against gay marriage?
I don’t even think Romney cares about gay marriage.
Anyway, I *get *it, but I think it’s ultimately unproductive. With the internet, people already ensconce themselves too much. Right wingers go to their news sources, and left wingers go to theirs. I think being exposed to people who disagree with you, even on a matter you would naturally perceive as heinous, is an uncomfortable but worthwhile endeavor.
The only real way society gets over prejudice (other than the old haters dying off) is being exposed to a lot of ‘nice, normal’ people who are in the group hated on.
Thanks for opinions everyone. To address some questions/concerns that others have brought up.
Some of my very conservative gay friends are extremely gay, in the sense that, if you spoke with these people for about 25 seconds you’d realize they were gay.
As a gay man who would very much like to get married, of course it’s upsetting that so many politicians and people in our country don’t support that right. And many of them probably do it out of hate for teh gayz. Defriending these people is not going to do any good in trying to show them that there might be a better way of thinking.
Honestly, if you only want to surround yourself with people who agree with you, then go ahead. But you’re going to miss out on many opportunities to make yourself and others better people.
Please don’t think it’s all about hating ‘teh gayz’.
I personally have nothing against gay marriage, none of my business who marries whom.
I have a lot of family and friends who are against it, only because they object to the word ‘marriage’ being used. They can’t get past their idea of marriage meaning one man and one woman.
They have nothing against gays, they totally support your right to couple up and have all the benefits of married couples, they just object to the use of the word ‘marriage’ to convey those rights.
I’m not saying the FB post is productive, and I don’t think I’d do that, but I think I understand how you could get there.
The thing is, for your average Doper, politics is optional. At most it means a couple dollars of your taxes going to one thing versus going to this other thing, or a tiny difference in your tax rate. Maybe, if you know someone in the military, it means missing them for the couple months they went to Iraq, but military types have to travel all the time anyway. But for most of us, no matter who wins, the most important things (for most of us in this order) are still here and not changed: our family, our friends, and our jobs. So most of us can ignore politics. Not talking politics is a way of saying “look, your friendship is more important than any petty political issues about the size of the defense budget or gay rights or whatever. It’s like White Sox fans versus Cubs fans: too silly to really argue about.” And, hey, that’s great that so many of us are so well off that we can afford to ignore politics.
But some people aren’t. To the FB person, politics isn’t something abstract about boring federal budgets, and it’s not some ball game where winning is just about winning and in the end nothing else. It is literally about their family and whether they’re allowed to have one. So telling him you don’t want to discuss politics isn’t saying ‘I value your friendship’; it’s saying ‘I don’t care about your family’.
Now, I can kind of understand how, if I was in that situation and people kept telling me “Look, talking about politics might hurt my feelings, so just shut up about it please, so we can talk about my children instead”, I might get a little angry, too. And might try to make people understand that by opposing gay rights you’re not just taking some ‘cheer for the Green team or the Orange team’ academic position, but you’re attacking me personally. And maybe, in frustration at people who refuse to think of their politics as having any real personal impact, I might have to try and dramatize that by telling people that supporting candidates who oppose gay rights is in fact a personal attack on me and my family, and therefore anyone who does so must not care enough about me to be my friend.
Again, I’m not saying this is productive, but then again, I’m lucky enough that my family isn’t at stake here, so I can afford to sit back and ponder it without too much emotion. I have no idea how objective I’d be if it was my marriage on the line.
Wait, married heterosexuals HAVE to procreate? Is this a new law? Because I know a whole lot of people who are breaking it.
Oh, and I also know a few children who must be raising themselves (and doing an awful good job of it), if homosexuals can’t raise children.
I’d consider defriending anyone who expressed approval of this:
http://www.outinjersey.net/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=1856%3Ahospital-visitation-a-privilege-not-a-right-says-romney&Itemid=1
There’s a point where my tolerance for people’s stupid religious beliefs dissipates, and it’s right around this point. If you believe this is acceptable, I think you’re a bad person and I don’t have even friend list space for you in my life. If anyone on my friend list reposts this with approving commentary about Romney, I will reconsider our friendship.
This. I can’t recall a single time when Romney actually brought up the topic of gay rights of his own volition, and every time he was asked that question in a debate or by the media, his answer seemed pretty clearly designed to appeal to the Republican base (and nothing more). I don’t get the impression that he has any sort of personal animosity towards gay people.
In fact, the impression I’ve gotten from him is that the only he really cares about is making a name for himself, obtaining money and power. I think he wants to go down in history as a good president, and were he to obtain presidency, I would be shocked if he put any legislation in place to hold back gay people. (Even if he says he will, I still doubt he actually will.) He probably would not advance gay rights much, but to defriend someone because a presidential candidate seems more focused on creating jobs than promoting gay rights seems characteristic of the sort of person who just loves drama for drama’s sake.
I believe “8 guys blowing 9 guys” is the agreed-upon threshold, but I can’t say how the OP fits into that equation.
Romney might not actively be against gay rights. But as President he probably wouldn’t try to stop Republicans in Congress if they tried to harm gay rights. And when he’s running for reelection, he probably wouldn’t be above pandering to people that are against gay rights and harming the gay community in the process.
At least one needs to dress like Liberace.
Exactly. If you couldn’t stand being friends with them, you would unfriend them. This guy just wanted to stir up crap. People like this cause more harm to the cause than good.
I feel the same way about people who put this sort of thing on dating sites, and at least they have a sort of excuse, that they are saving you time by being upfront.
Still, being specific on the person rather than the belief tends to make me think it’s not out of the goodness of their hearts. What’s wrong with just saying “I tend to not get along with conservatives/liberals” or “I’m gay and I have a problem being with people who don’t want me to get married”? Unless that person is widely known for doing something really bad, it just makes you seem petty.
This is close to what I think. The little creep is trying to hold your friendship hostage until you give up voting for Romney. I would say de-friend him/them, and make all concerned happy.
Of course, OTOH, the self righteous little ponce will probably say “See! I have been defriended because of my bold political stance!” Quite the martyr.
I’m straight, and I know that if I were to vote for Romney I wouldn’t be able to look my gay friends in the eye.
It’s the year 2012, and we’re *still *arguing over whether everyone should have the same basic civil rights?
One american friend of mine put this on his facebook, and I can totally understand why. He’s trans, and has had a hell of a lot of shit for it. I think his post wasn’t being passive-aggressive, but reminding people that their vote impacts him, a real person, not some abstract idea.
And also he was just frustrated and annoyed and it was one way to show it.
I’m in the UK, so wouldn’t post this update, but I certainly don’t want any Tories on my Facebook friends list. I’ll happily talk to them in real life (usually avoiding politics), or on messageboards, but facebook is for people I like. And the ConDems have been so fucking awful that liking them means being completely at odds with me in every way. I imagine some americans feel the same about the Bush years.
I think everyone is better off having friends who deeply disagree with them. Otherwise people get into echo chambers where all their social group agrees with them and they lose the ability to understand the motivations of large swaths of their fellow beings. I don’t think that being friends with a person is in any way tacit agreement that their beliefs are all morally acceptable or makes one complicit with their doings.
They need to suck it the fuck up. History is not going to set aside a special place for People Who Are Totally For Gays Getting Married, Just Don’t Call It That, they’re going to be left with the bigots. (Because they are bigots.)
Romney campaigns for an america that has no place in it for me and you don’t get to divorce yourself from his social platform by saying, well, I disagree with that or I’m voting for him because of his economic policies. You are still culpable and your vote, if not your name, will go down in history as backing an asshole and a homophobe. So no, I don’t want to be friends with Romney sympathizers in real life or on facebook. They bring nothing to the table.
This is where I feel I must channel my inner 4 year old and ask:
Why?
And repeat the question after every weak answer until they break down and admit they want to keep “marriage” as one man one woman because gay people are weird, or sick, or that being gay is an abomination.
We’re talking people who don’t read anything deeper than People Magazine suddenly developing a rabid interest in etymology, but only regarding one specific word. It’s entirely coincidental that this interest involves the rights of gay people, who they totally have nothing against.