I answered this more than a few times. As far as boycotting, I’ve said that I have no problem with company donations being open to public scrutiny. Or large donations by individuals.
I’m not trying to change the law retroactively. I’m arguing for what the law should be in the future. Akin to the federal laws.
But the point is we don’t usually know. I don’t know the politics of the deli I frequent down the street. Or the dry cleaner. Or the bookstore, which I choose to support even though I have a pretty good guess which way they lean. I really couldn’t care less. They do a good job and treat me nicely.
Well, rethink, by all means. Just because someone makes an erroneous statement doesn’t give you cover, does it. Or don’t you stand by your own opinions. You said I was ignorant. I asked you to point out this ignorance. You typed nonsense claiming I held a belief that I clearly hadn’t. In fact, you had even quoted where I explicitly stated the opposite of what you accused me of. I pointed this out and now you say “ignorance has been fought”? For all the bluster about having the courage to stand up for what you believe, how about for what you write? You were wrong. I pointed it out. And now you do something other than admit it and take responsibility. May I suggest a little intellectual honesty to go with all that courage you have?
I did not equate the two, I said they were similar. The fact that federal laws treat them even more similarly should be proof of that. And I didn’t “finally” say something else. I have been consistent throughout. And you may want to review the exchange. You pointed to my said ignorance AFTER you read the clarification you mention. :smack:
So let’s see how much this chest-thumping courage of conviction is buttressed by intellectual honesty. I await your apology.
I agree. Except that I don’t see this mistake being made equally. Just read the threads here about the issue and count the number of times one side is characterized as evil, hateful, bigoted, morally bankrupt, scum, etc. I admit that I may be wrong. About anything. But I’m not the one lobbing ad hominems at the other side.
Of course you don’t see it being made equally, if you’re only looking at responses on the SDMB. Look at any conservative message board, and you’ll see prop. 8 opponents (and gays in general) being characterized as evil, degenerate, pedophiles, ungodly, morally bankrupt, scum, and so forth. However, unlike Prop. 8 opponents, these people are not content to simply insult the other side, they actively try to change the laws to disadvantage them. Oh, and they’re far more prone to translating invective into physical violence.
Yep. Doesn’t matter to me if someone votes against something I’m for, or vice versa. I mean, obviously it affects me, but the vote is their right. But they then want to take money I’ve given them and use it against me? Hell yes I want to know about it so I can stop giving them money that they’ll use to hurt me.
That’s really what the distinction is, here. A vote is guaranteed by the government. You have the right to vote. You may have the right to donate to a cause, but you do not have the right to donate to it with my money. That’s why a boycott is acceptable.
It depends how you look at it, I think. I agree with most of what you say. There are undoubtedly hateful people who would not only undermine any gay cause, but would wish them harm. I was making a distinction between gay rights writ large and the one specific proposition addressed by Prop 8: marriage. And let’s take these boards again, slanted as they are. Do you have an idea the thousands of words I’ve typed and the time spent just to get some posters to acquiesce and say, well, okay, maybe you’re not a completely hateful bigot who is evil and morally bankrupt, but most Prop 8 proponents are. Even though I’ve ascribed no similar discriptors to the other side. I wish some of them could hear them from my ears. They sound just like the most bigoted, ignorant Phelps-types they loathe.
Not giving money to a business who will then use it against your interests makes sense. As I’ve said, numerous times, I’m fine with business donations being disclosed.
Yes, I most definitely disagree with her, and many other citizens obviously disagree with her too. We’re not disagreeing on whether purple or green is a better color for the living room; we’re talking about civil rights.
If a person feels they are right, and hopefully uses critical thinking skills, then it is their duty to fight for what they think is right and true. I can acknowledge that I might be wrong, but due to the dearth of any legitimate evidence to the contrary, I’m going to fight as if I’m right.
It is the religious right that begins with ignorance and opinion, not fact.
I don’t think prop 8 supporters are evil; I think they’re ignorant and the dupes of an organization that is evil: mormons.
I’m well aware society can love gays and still have an unfair, paternalistic attitude towards them. It’s just like men loving their wives but voting against their equal rights. It’s horribly paternalistic to love someone but view them as inferior and undeserving of equal rights. Gays are adult citizens who deserve the same rights as any adult citizen.
And that, too, is a debatable point. If you recall, even when it was argued that the rights be extended, sans “marriage”, that was insufficient. So, no, I don’t think it is about rights. I understand your desire to couch it as such, but the fact is that reasonable people can disagree about that. And when you couch it as a civil rights fight, aren’t you really just trying to say there is no legitimate opposition—that you cannot be wrong?
And why is it okay to accept disagreement about trivial matters only? Shouldn’t the tolerance for other points of view extend to things that are more important? In fact, isn’t that when the word takes on meaning?
Why do you insist on pitting yourself against the religious right? They aren’t the only ones who disagree with your position. I think it’s because then you can call them ignorant. But they are only part of the opposition. For some people it is “the bible says so”. Not for all.
See above. But you really think that LDS are evil? We must have differetn menaings of the word.
I it’s been demonstrated, and I think even admitted to by some in past threads, that it is not about rights. Or, at least not only about rights.
In case you have a scoreboard or something, you can mark me off in the “think you’re a bigot” category. Not hateful though. Resoundingly stupid, maybe?
Well, see… my reasoning is those gays have nothing better to do than fuck with real humans’ marriages, and probably don’t get any sleep. It takes a lot of work fucking up humans’ marriages, but it’s what gays were born to do.
I don’t think that trivial/important is quite the right axis to judge whether something should be “tolerated” or not. For example, the existence of God, and what form he takes, is not a trivial matter, but it’s one of the most important areas where one needs to demonstrate tolerance. At the same time, “Should the Jews be rounded up and put in camps?” is also a very non-trivial matter, and is one in which a particular viewpoint absolutely should not be tolerated. On the other end of the spectrum, personal hygeine is, in the grand scheme of things, fairly trivial, but I don’t think that means I necessarily have to tolerate people who never bathe. What should and should not be tolerated is going to vary from person to person, although generally speaking, most people are not going to tolerate ideas or actions that directly harm them. Which is why you’re not going to find a whole lot of gays who are willing to write this issue off with “Reasonable people can disagree.” You may be a reasonable person, but your actions are still causing me direct harm, and that’s an intolerable situation to me.
That’s well put. And I’d agree with almost all of it. But I guess one thing at issue is that I don’t see gays being denied the use of “marriage” as harmful. The rights argument I’d be in agreement with you on. But we’ve been over that ground before and is not the subject of this thread.
You don’t see it as harmful? Really? I mean, i’ve argued the subject of whether gays using marriage is harmful to society (or at least more harmful that not), and i’ve agreed with you that it probably will be, thought we disagree as to the extent and importance of that harm. Do you really believe that there’s no harm whatsoever in gays being denied the use of marriage? At the most basic, rudimentary level, one thing we can be sure of is that many gays appear to want to be able to use that term, and thus by denying them it, harm is caused to their desires. Considering also that you consider tradition to be considerably valuable, surely it is harmful to prevent others from forming or joining a tradition? Even if, as in my particular view, you believe that there is some benefit to the idea of your opponents but that is balanced by considerable, larger drawbacks, then I’d understand. But really, no harm at all? I’m very surprised by that.
If I understand **magellan01’**s position based on previous threads, gays being married is so fundamentally, objectively impossible that it’s like men wanting to bear children. Denying men the right to bear children harms nobody because they couldn’t do so anyway.
