# Since I can't be honest in GD . . . **URL:** \ **Category:** The BBQ Pit\ **Created:** [May 27, 2009, 2:40am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/since-i-cant-be-honest-in-gd/497768 "2009-05-27T02:40:18Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 11
**Author:** ![mswas](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/e99b99/32.png) [@mswas](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/mswas)\ **Post date:** [May 27, 2009, 3:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/since-i-cant-be-honest-in-gd/497768/201 "2009-05-27T15:58:05Z")
> [@Der\_Trihs](#): > > Except, of course Communism isn’t an atheist agenda. It most certainly is. The destruction of religion was one of the core tenets of atheism. > [@](#): > > Which is why it’s Communism and Communism alone that gets dragged in by dishonest people like you who falsely equate the two; you don’t have anything BUT a false equivalence to Communism to wave at us. Atheism, as has been pointed out over and over was just a minor component of Communism; Communism did what it did in the name of Communism, not atheism. Atheism doesn’t HAVE an agenda; it can’t. Oh I see you get to lump ALL religion into one undifferentiated pile, and get to lump all people who think a certain way into another undifferentiated pile as bigots, but I don’t get to lump all atheists in with communists. Funny how that works, your unsophisticated categorical groupings are valid, but my unsophisticated categorical groupings are dishonest. Interesting double-standard. 😉 Atheism WAS NOT a minor component of communism considering it was based off of the DIALECTICAL **MATERIALISM** theories of Karl Marx. > [@](#): > > Nonsense. You were clearly being dismissive. And saying, “They are all bigots.”, isn’t dismissive? > [@](#): > > Then unless you demand that ALL marriages be outlawed, you are a bigot. Because SSM doesn’t cost any more than any other marriage, therefore using economics to single them out is just an excuse for the underlying bigotry. I actually have said that the government should get out of the marriage game entirely, on several occasions. Not that marriage should be outlawed, just that it shouldn’t be the provenance of the government. Let it be a matter of contract law, Civil Unions for everyone. ---
**Author:** ![wevets](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/w/e9a140/32.png) [@wevets](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/wevets)\ **Post date:** [May 27, 2009, 3:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/since-i-cant-be-honest-in-gd/497768/202 "2009-05-27T15:59:29Z")
> [@DSYoungEsq](#): > > No. What Jodi is saying is that the state shouldn’t be in the business of ratifying a religious relationship. But that’s the thing - **it’s not a religious relationship!** I have no religion and am not a spiritual person. **Jodi** wants to replace sexual orientation discrimination with religious discrimination. > [@](#): > > The state should not be formalizing the religious relationship with a legal status. And it isn’t - **because it’s not a religious relationship!** > [@](#): > > So suppose we call the civil relationship _bodrig_. Well, the boat’s already sailed on that, hasn’t it? Don’t we call marriages between atheists marriages? > [@](#): > > Jodi might be happy for you if you are married. I doubt that. She’s posted some vile things about not caring whether she runs me over with a car. I don’t think she’s ever going to be happy for me. 😉 > [@](#): > > Avoids some interesting First Amendment issues that way, too. 😉 What’s first amendment-related about non-religious marriages? If there’s no religion in the mix, the state doesn’t have to worry about establishment of any religion over any other. ---
**Author:** ![mswas](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/e99b99/32.png) [@mswas](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/mswas)\ **Post date:** [May 27, 2009, 3:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/since-i-cant-be-honest-in-gd/497768/203 "2009-05-27T15:59:35Z")
> [@sailor](#): > > I have little interest in the SSM debate and in whether those who oppose it are all bigots but, as has been noted, the overwhelming majority of the American people favor discrimination on the basis of nationality, which is even more untenable rationally thinking, and yet no one goes around calling those who oppose open borders “bigots”. > > The history of mankind is one group trying to obtain and retain privileges it denies others and the denied groups trying to acquire them and as soon as they acquire them trying to keep the door closed to others. > > If those opposed to SSM are and can only be, bigots then pretty much all Americans are bigots for denying other nationalities the privileges they grant themselves. > > America today is all about trying to retain its situation of privilege in the world and trying to deny that to others so I really can’t get too worked up about something which is quite minor in comparison. This is a fabulous argument. I agree, nationalism IS bigotry. I favor open borders. It’s always funny though how often people who think we should have open borders oppose attempts to institute a world government. Ironic. ---
**Author:** ![Jodi](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/7feea3/32.png) [@Jodi](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Jodi)\ **Post date:** [May 27, 2009, 4:01pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/since-i-cant-be-honest-in-gd/497768/204 "2009-05-27T16:01:04Z")
> [@wevets](#): > > You either care about whether we call my relationship with my wife a marriage, regardless of my lack of religion, or you don’t. Y’know, I think my position has been made very clear, and I even restated it for you. In answer to “you either care about what you call your relationship with my wife, or you don’t,” let me be clear: I don’t. I think EVERYONE should have to call civil unions and religious unions different things, if and when that IMO necessary distinguishment is made. It is only in light of that distinguishment that what you or anyone else calls your union makes any difference, and that was the context of the comment to which you are objecting. Even if you didn’t get that context the first time, I have now twice explicitly clarified it for you. If that makes me a “liar” in your eyes, then I will assume you care more about calling me names than you do with actually understanding my position. > [@](#): > > You apparently care about _something_, since you’re spending time and energy in this thread. Yes, because God knows posting to a message board about a subject demonstrates deep devotion to it. > [@](#): > > All we know is that you certainly don’t care about anything resembling logical consistency. Well, you and the frog in your pocket who make up your “we” just stand over there secure in that knowledge, then. I see no upside to explaining myself yet again at this point. If you insist on being insulted, be my guest. > [@](#): > > Mostly I just want to flaunt in your face that we call ourselves married, our friends call us married, the state calls us married, and there’s not a damn thing you can do about it! 😃 Oh, noes! You flaunter, you! You employ the socially-accepted and indeed only available terminology to describe your union with your wife! _You bastard!_ Please, just leave me to marinate in my rage. :rolleyes: ---
**Author:** ![Sinaijon](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/dc4da7/32.png) [@Sinaijon](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sinaijon)\ **Post date:** [May 27, 2009, 4:02pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/since-i-cant-be-honest-in-gd/497768/205 "2009-05-27T16:02:24Z")
> [@The\_Tao\_s\_Revenge](#): > > When was the last time “separate but equal” was tried in America? How’d that work out? > > Even something as simple as a drinking fountain. Water is water but civil rights advocates fought for everyone be able to drink from the same fountain. How would you feel about being told repeatedly “this marriage/drinking fountain isn’t for you” simply because of your race/sexual preference? Would you be a good boy and drink from the other or would you fight for your rights to be treated the same as anyone? That’s all irrelevant to my point. Society is providing a water fountain. Gays are boycotting the water fountain becuase it’s not the same one provided to straights. Fine. But you are lying if you claim society won’t let you drink. ---
**Author:** ![The\_Tao\_s\_Revenge](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/73ab20/32.png) [@The\_Tao\_s\_Revenge](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/The_Tao_s_Revenge)\ **Post date:** [May 27, 2009, 4:02pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/since-i-cant-be-honest-in-gd/497768/206 "2009-05-27T16:02:54Z")
> [@Larry\_Borgia](#): > > > [@sailor](#): > > > > I have little interest in the SSM debate and in whether those who oppose it are all bigots but, as has been noted, the overwhelming majority of the American people favor discrimination on the basis of nationality, which is even more untenable rationally thinking, and yet no one goes around calling those who oppose open borders “bigots”. > > > > The history of mankind is one group trying to obtain and retain privileges it denies others and the denied groups trying to acquire them and as soon as they acquire them trying to keep the door closed to others. > > > > If those opposed to SSM are and can only be, bigots then pretty much all Americans are bigots for denying other nationalities the privileges they grant themselves. > > > > America today is all about trying to retain its situation of privilege in the world and trying to deny that to others so I really can’t get too worked up about something which is quite minor in comparison. > > The shorter version: > > “I have no interest in this thread, but I just thought I’d let you all know how much I hate Americans. God, do I hate Americans.” I know right. Someone needs a big star spangled kiss and hug. ---
**Author:** ![Der\_Trihs](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/der_trihs/32/233_2.png) [@Der\_Trihs](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Der_Trihs)\ **Post date:** [May 27, 2009, 4:04pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/since-i-cant-be-honest-in-gd/497768/207 "2009-05-27T16:04:23Z")
> [@mswas](#): > > It’s neither vague nor wild-eyed but fairly much a certainty. A “certainty” that no one can actually show will happen. Or define, without proving the “certainty” to be nonsense as soon as it’s dragged into the light. > [@mswas](#): > > Ok, so you don’t care that’s clear, so what? It’s an ongoing debate. The gay Christians and those who have a different interpretation will duke it out within the church. YOU are the one who claimed that “Christian culture” was at risk. Not that two factions of Christians were arguing. Goalposts : moved. > [@mswas](#): > > I rather doubt that most people know what transhumanism is, but this is where you shortchange yourself with the, “They are just bigots.”, line of argument. You aren’t privy to polite discussion on transhumanism with Christians who ARE aware of it and have some interesting things to say on the topic. You assume that I DON’T talk to such people. Specifically, the ones who aren’t talking about the evils of gays, or women, or blacks, etc and thus removing themselves from both the categories of “polite” and of having worthwhile opinions. > [@mswas](#): > > I personally think you are incapable of knowing what is moral and what is not because you are incapable of comprehending an issue from multiple sides. No, this is simply a grossly one sided issue. ---
**Author:** ![The\_Tao\_s\_Revenge](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/73ab20/32.png) [@The\_Tao\_s\_Revenge](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/The_Tao_s_Revenge)\ **Post date:** [May 27, 2009, 4:07pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/since-i-cant-be-honest-in-gd/497768/208 "2009-05-27T16:07:47Z")
> [@Sinaijon](#): > > That’s all irrelevant to my point. Society is providing a water fountain. Gays are boycotting the water fountain becuase it’s not the same one provided to straights. Fine. But you are lying if you claim society won’t let you drink. Society won’t let them marry though, that lead’s to the point. Why won’t society let them marry? Why does society feel they’re so different? Taking a Civil Union to many folks is telling the world you’re okay being discriminated against. ---
**Author:** ![Der\_Trihs](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/der_trihs/32/233_2.png) [@Der\_Trihs](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Der_Trihs)\ **Post date:** [May 27, 2009, 4:11pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/since-i-cant-be-honest-in-gd/497768/209 "2009-05-27T16:11:03Z")
> [@mswas](#): > > It most certainly is. The destruction of religion was one of the core tenets of atheism. Nonsense. Atheism holds that there are no gods. That’s all. It doesn’t even say if that’s good or bad, much less call for the destruction of anything. > [@mswas](#): > > Oh I see you get to lump ALL religion into one undifferentiated pile, and get to lump all people who think a certain way into another undifferentiated pile as bigots, but I don’t get to lump all atheists in with communists. Funny how that works, your unsophisticated categorical groupings are valid, but my unsophisticated categorical groupings are dishonest. No, it’s just that atheism is a single belief while religions and Communism are belief systems. Religions and Communism are much more closely related than Communism and atheism. > [@Sinaijon](#): > > That’s all irrelevant to my point. Society is providing a water fountain. Gays are boycotting the water fountain becuase it’s not the same one provided to straights. Fine. But you are lying if you claim society won’t let you drink. If I say that you can drink a glass of urine while I drink water, that’s not ‘letting you drink’. ---
**Author:** ![The\_Tao\_s\_Revenge](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/73ab20/32.png) [@The\_Tao\_s\_Revenge](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/The_Tao_s_Revenge)\ **Post date:** [May 27, 2009, 4:11pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/since-i-cant-be-honest-in-gd/497768/210 "2009-05-27T16:11:56Z")
> [@Isamu](#): > > Ale-fucken-luia. You said it right **Tao**. You don’t try to ‘fit in’ with people you disagree with just because it makes life easier. Exactly. You have to fight for what you believe in even if it’s hard. ---
**Author:** ![Jodi](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/7feea3/32.png) [@Jodi](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Jodi)\ **Post date:** [May 27, 2009, 4:12pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/since-i-cant-be-honest-in-gd/497768/211 "2009-05-27T16:12:26Z")
> [@wevets](#): > > I have no religion and am not a spiritual person. **Jodi** wants to replace sexual orientation discrimination with religious discrimination. No, **Jodi** doesn’t. If “marriage” is defined as a civil union endorsed by the state and “charriage” is defined as a religious or spiritual union endorsed by a faith group outside of the framework of governmentally endowed rights and responsibilities, how would it be “religious discrimination” to bar you from charriage? You are not a spiritual person. If you were you could get charried as well as married. Again, I’m not wedded – ha! – to the terms. If you want “marriage” for the governmetally endorsed union, I don’t care. Call the religious union something else. > [@](#): > > Well, the boat’s already sailed on that, hasn’t it? Don’t we call marriages between atheists marriages? Are you arguing because the boat’s already sailed, there’s no way and no reason to argue for bringing the boat back and cutting it into two boats? > [@](#): > > I doubt that. She’s posted some vile things about not caring whether she runs me over with a car. I don’t think she’s ever going to be happy for me. “Vile things”? Are you serious? > [@](#): > > What’s first amendment-related about non-religious marriages? If there’s no religion in the mix, the state doesn’t have to worry about establishment of any religion over any other. People do not normally distinguish between “religious marriage” (“charriage”) and “civil marriage” (“marriage”) – and you know, I don’t think youre terms are any better than mine. That’s the problem: The lack of such distinguishment is the basis upon which non-SSM can argue against the extension of _all_ marital rights to gays: They conflate _their_ view of marriage/charriage (one man + one woman, only in a church, whatever) with government-sanctioned marriage, and insist that unless you meet the criteria for the former (in their eyes, of course), you should not be admitted to the latter. It’s not only what they _can_ do, it is exactly what they _are_ doing, and forms the very core of their opposition. Using different terms cuts off their access to that conflation of ideas. ---
**Author:** ![mswas](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/e99b99/32.png) [@mswas](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/mswas)\ **Post date:** [May 27, 2009, 4:14pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/since-i-cant-be-honest-in-gd/497768/212 "2009-05-27T16:14:24Z")
> [@Der\_Trihs](#): > > A “certainty” that no one can actually show will happen. Or define, without proving the “certainty” to be nonsense as soon as it’s dragged into the light. No it’s pretty much a certainty that traditional Christian culture in this nation is being eroded pretty rapidly. It can certainly be defined and proved, if of course one wants to look at evidence and isn’t satisfied with the intellectually incurious response of, “Why would I care what bigots think?” > [@](#): > > YOU are the one who claimed that “Christian culture” was at risk. Not that two factions of Christians were arguing. Goalposts : moved. Your inability to hold two simple concepts in your mind at once is hardly the same as moving goalposts. Gay Christian activists are an extremely new subset of Christianity and are flying in the face of an established traditional culture. You like to frame the debate as though the traditionalists are the radicals, it doesn’t work on me even if it works on some others. The gay Christian activists are actually the radicals in this case, who are trying to redefine what that culture is. > [@](#): > > You assume that I DON’T talk to such people. Specifically, the ones who aren’t talking about the evils of gays, or women, or blacks, etc and thus removing themselves from both the categories of “polite” and of having worthwhile opinions. How can you speak to these people if you are screaming, “You’re a bigot.”, at them all the time. I have seen how you talk to Christians, you are a condescending prick 100% of the time and don’t really listen to the arguments without prejudgment. I am not saying this as though you are a blank slate to me, I have seen how you conduct yourself in arguments for over half a decade. > [@](#): > > No, this is simply a grossly one sided issue. As conveniently is any issue where you come into conflict with religious traditionalists. Convenient how that always works in your favor isn’t it? ---
**Author:** ![Sinaijon](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/dc4da7/32.png) [@Sinaijon](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sinaijon)\ **Post date:** [May 27, 2009, 4:16pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/since-i-cant-be-honest-in-gd/497768/213 "2009-05-27T16:16:13Z")
> [@Der\_Trihs](#): > > Because they are not and never will be the equal of marriage; not in rights, not in recognition, not in respect. That’s what they are for; a ghetto. A slap in the face, and an attempt to write bigotry into law. Exactly. It’s not pursuit of rights, it’s pursuit of victimization. Nothing short of perfect, right from the start will satisfy. ---
**Author:** ![mswas](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/e99b99/32.png) [@mswas](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/mswas)\ **Post date:** [May 27, 2009, 4:17pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/since-i-cant-be-honest-in-gd/497768/214 "2009-05-27T16:17:24Z")
> [@Der\_Trihs](#): > > Nonsense. Atheism holds that there are no gods. That’s all. It doesn’t even say if that’s good or bad, much less call for the destruction of anything. I meant ‘communism’ sorry. > [@](#): > > No, it’s just that atheism is a single belief while religions and Communism are belief systems. Religions and Communism are much more closely related than Communism and atheism. Communism is an atheist belief system. I was just exemplifying the gross oversimplification that characterizes your arguments, only applying it to a characteristic that you attribute to yourself. I don’t think that all atheists are communists, or that all atheists want to eradicate religion. I DO however think that YOU want to eradicate religion. But I don’t think you will act violently in the name of that cause. I think you are a mostly harmless irascible individual who finds an outlet in internet message boards. ---
**Author:** ![Kalhoun](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/3bc359/32.png) [@Kalhoun](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Kalhoun)\ **Post date:** [May 27, 2009, 4:19pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/since-i-cant-be-honest-in-gd/497768/215 "2009-05-27T16:19:12Z")
> [@FinnAgain](#): > > This seems to be a meme going around, and it’s weird. > > Their argument has to be logically supportable or it’s invalid and wrong, not bigoted. It doesn’t work that way. People are, in general, pretty damn stupid. They make stupid, emotionally based arguments that don’t stand up to factual scrutiny all the time. Some people may hold the (mistaken) view that SSM will somehow lead to societal erosion. They may not even be able to elaborate on why they think that is, other than that changing the definition of marriage is scary and their gut tells them bad things will happen. > > But that doesn’t mean they making the argument because of bigotry. It does mean that they’re supporting a position that leads to unacceptable discrimination, and doing so with faulty rhetoric. It _may_ mean that they hate gay people and are rationalizing their bigotry with a more acceptable cover story. But it might also mean that they’re just going on shitty intuition and emotion, and while they have nothing at all against gay people, their poor thought processes can have horrible consequences for the civil rights of gays. But they are not, _by necessity_, bigoted, homophobic, whatever. I get that. I just get a strong vibe that when something has no logical basis in fact, and the people keep defending it as a valid argument, it smells like a socially acceptable cover for _I Hate How Gay People Fuck and I Don’t Want to be in the Same Social Group as Them._ ---
**Author:** ![magellan01](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/45deac/32.png) [@magellan01](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/magellan01)\ **Post date:** [May 27, 2009, 4:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/since-i-cant-be-honest-in-gd/497768/216 "2009-05-27T16:22:35Z")
> [@Der\_Trihs](#): > > No, this is simply a grossly one sided issue. Well, there’s your problem right there. ---
**Author:** ![FinnAgain](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/finnagain/32/12500_2.png) [@FinnAgain](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/FinnAgain)\ **Post date:** [May 27, 2009, 4:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/since-i-cant-be-honest-in-gd/497768/217 "2009-05-27T16:27:35Z")
> [@Kalhoun](#): > > I get that. I just get a strong vibe that when something has no logical basis in fact, and the people keep defending it as a valid argument, it smells like a socially acceptable cover for _I Hate How Gay People Fuck and I Don’t Want to be in the Same Social Group as Them._ I’d agree that, as with many other forms of bigotry and racism, scumfucks do their best to disguise their true intention/feelings. (Like David Duke’s “I don’t hate Jews, but let me tell you about their plans for Jewish Supremicism…”). You’re right that it does fail the ‘smell test’. _But_, I maintain that it’s important to realize that some people simply cling to invalid arguments because, well, people cling to invalid, stupid, absurd arguments all the time. It’s what people do. Sure, when it supports a discriminatory position it’s horrible, but it’s not by necessity a sign of bigotry. That’s my only point. Are some people who use that type of rhetoric covering up for bigotry? Sure. Are many? Quite possibly. Are all, absolutely all with no exceptions who so ever? No. ---
**Author:** ![Der\_Trihs](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/der_trihs/32/233_2.png) [@Der\_Trihs](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Der_Trihs)\ **Post date:** [May 27, 2009, 4:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/since-i-cant-be-honest-in-gd/497768/218 "2009-05-27T16:28:21Z")
> [@Sinaijon](#): > > Exactly. It’s not pursuit of rights, it’s pursuit of victimization. Nothing short of perfect, right from the start will satisfy. Oh, really. And how well did waiting . . . and waiting . . . and waiting . . . for segregation to lead to equality work ? It was the generation who went out and demanded equal rights that got them. > [@mswas](#): > > No it’s pretty much a certainty that traditional Christian culture in this nation is being eroded pretty rapidly. It can certainly be defined and proved, if of course one wants to look at evidence and isn’t satisfied with the intellectually incurious response of, “Why would I care what bigots think?” Since you are defining “traditional Christian culture” as only those beliefs of those Christians who are bigots, why SHOULD I care ? Or anyone ? > [@mswas](#): > > Your inability to hold two simple concepts in your mind at once is hardly the same as moving goalposts. Gay Christian activists are an extremely new subset of Christianity and are flying in the face of an established traditional culture. You like to frame the debate as though the traditionalists are the radicals, it doesn’t work on me even if it works on some others. The gay Christian activists are actually the radicals in this case, who are trying to redefine what that culture is. You said “Christian culture”. It was only after I pointed out that there are pro-SSM Christians that suddenly it was “traditional Christian culture”; the “traditional” part apparently being confined to those traditions that happen to be bigoted. > [@mswas](#): > > How can you speak to these people if you are screaming, “You’re a bigot.”, at them all the time. Because they aren’t ? Because they don’t feel compelled to start talking about the inferiority of women or how gays shouldn’t marry. > [@mswas](#): > > As conveniently is any issue where you come into conflict with religious traditionalists. Convenient how that always works in your favor isn’t it? It’s not a matter of convenience; it’s a matter of the religious having no factual basis for their belief. ---
**Author:** ![Bosstone](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/22d042/32.png) [@Bosstone](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bosstone)\ **Post date:** [May 27, 2009, 4:29pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/since-i-cant-be-honest-in-gd/497768/219 "2009-05-27T16:29:56Z")
> [@mswas](#): > > No it’s pretty much a certainty that traditional Christian culture in this nation is being eroded pretty rapidly. It can certainly be defined and proved, if of course one wants to look at evidence and isn’t satisfied with the intellectually incurious response of, “Why would I care what bigots think?” Is “Good, and the sooner the better” an acceptable answer? You’re starting from the premise that traditional Christian culture is all that and a bag of chips. There is a lot to be said for the values Christ espoused, but they’ve never been a part of the traditional Christian culture that’s been eroded in the name of civil rights. Hating one’s fellow man and wishing to deny him happiness should be viewed with disapproval, regardless of whether it stems from Christianity, Buddhism, secular teachings, or whatever. ---
**Author:** ![elucidator](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/8edcca/32.png) [@elucidator](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/elucidator)\ **Post date:** [May 27, 2009, 4:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/since-i-cant-be-honest-in-gd/497768/220 "2009-05-27T16:35:42Z")
> [@The\_Tao\_s\_Revenge](#): > > Exactly. You have to fight for what you believe in even if it’s hard. You have to _live_ for what you believe in, which is usually harder. Any damn fool can fight. And may I humbly suggest that seizing someone by the lapels and screaming in their face may not be the best means to advance tolerance and understanding? [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/since-i-cant-be-honest-in-gd/497768.md?page=10) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/since-i-cant-be-honest-in-gd/497768.md?page=12)