Yes, the old “they’re hypocrites for being hypocrites like us” thing never works.
These are hardly conservative examples. I am reffering to those who believe in same sex marriage, or for that matter believe in God or right to life issues. The animosity and aggression toward moderate conservatives has become almost intolerable and is creating a divide in our country that I have never witnessed in my lifetime. And yes we have our own fringe extremists but the media seems to highly favor the left. Conservatives supposedly have lower IQ’s, less education, all carry guns, basicaly a bunch of bozos and racists. It just is not the case.
Perhaps you see a leftist bias because you’re on the other side. I see plenty of attacks on liberals in the media myself, along with what I see as ridiculous accusations of bias from the right. But that’s me.
What the hell kind of liberal is named “Floyd Lee Corkins”?
That’s a red state name if I’ve ever heard one. Guy’s got a shaved head and a beer belly, for Chrissake. I suspect subterfuge.
Calling Dan Cathy’s comments hateful isn’t uncivil. It’s a lot of emergy to expend over a fast food chain, but there is nothing inherently wrong or uncivil about it. I’m not aware of any calls for violence, any suggestion that Chick-Fil-A or anybody else should be “targeted” or any hints that they had violence coming to them. So the equivalences proposed in this thread are deeply, deeply phony.
The FRC shooting was terrible and I’m glad no one was killed.
This is so true. This is exactly why people opposed interracial marriage: they knew it was a slippery slope to gay marriage, then to polygamy, then to marrying dogs. It’s not that people hated black people or were bigoted, they were just looking at the bigger picture.
I feel like I’m reasonably well informed about the Chick-Fil-A issue and I have never heard of the “tastes like hate” campaign. I don’t feel obligated to go out of my way to find out examples of the most ludicrous things people on “my side” do just so I can denounce them.
Most suggestions to do so are simply Concern Trickery.
I’m not against Polygamy. However it actually does have something against it, unlike same-sex marriage. Polygamy has historically been about fucking little girls. Also it disrupts the balance of the sexes in society which would actually make society unstable.
So I understand the prohibition against polygamy. The prohibition against SSM has no such societal impacts.
I’m not suggesting that hatred need be involved. The very act of the discrimination is bigoted, regardless of the method the person uses to rationalize it.
We? :dubious:
Are you against anyone marrying anyone for any reason? If so, does that automatically mean you hate that group?
So what? We’re not talking about that now.
You might say the same about gay marriage.
This isn’t sinking in, is it?
Now YOU are the one who is deciding who should and who should not be married based on “societal impacts” and such. Does this mean you hate the groups of people you think shouldn’t be allowed to marry?
Yes, that’s exactly what you did.
Absolute rubbish.
Discrimination simply means making choices. I discriminate in hiring decisions when I choose not to hire anyone who isn’t qualified for the job, for instance. It’s when the discrimination is based on something evil or irrational that it becomes bigotry. I wouldn’t choose not to hire someone because he’s black.
So sometimes discrimination is normal, and sometimes it is bigotry. And when it comes to marriage, discrimination between those you allow to marry and those you don’t is inescapable, otherwise there would be no need for marriage in the first place. So you shouldn’t go around assuming that everyone’s choice is motivated by hate, since you’ll have to make a choice too.
Neither have I. I’ve heard of protests and things like the kiss-ins, but not this particular campaign if there’s really any campaign to speak of.
Please take the polygamy discussion to another thread. It’s not the subject here.
Yes, we. All of us. On the left and the right. On this board, and everywhere else. Unless you never did it in the first place or have already stopped, in which case, awesome.
Um, no, that’s not quite it. In fact, it’s the opposite.
Exactly. Or, to put it another way, as a gay person it doesn’t matter to me whether you (general you) oppose SSM (or ENDA, or whatever) because of explicit hatred or for whatever other reason: the harmful effect on me is the same.
I had a devastating set of responses to Lance above, but I just saw the moderation.
Agreed.
Lance, what you’re not understanding is that a human is a black box. I don’t know what’s going on inside your head. What matters is if the black box produces bigotry.
If there are two boxes, each producing bigotry, and one is doing it because it hates gays and finds them sickening, and the other is producing bigotry because it believes that “historical marriage” is important to maintain, it doesn’t matter.
Because from the outside all we see is two little bigotry boxes chugging along producing their widgets.
It doesn’t matter what makes it work, if from the outside it’s functionally identical.
The mod is missing the point - this discussion isn’t about polygamy. That’s just an example of a type of marriage that it still banned.
I suspect you already know this, but calls to “tone down the rhetoric” were aimed at political figures, not everyday people. The over-the-top rhetoric is certainly just as common on the left. The difference is that it (mostly) doesn’t come from people the left puts into office.
I’m sure it’s clear to you that comparing (say) Sarah Palin, an opinion leader and successful fundraiser in the GOP, to some whackjob who shot up the FRC’s office is disingenuous.
I’m not sure if you can call it that, but whatever.
But what if there’s a third box that has all sorts of completely rational (even if you disagree with them) reasons?
And what about the box that produces discrimination against everyone else, like polygamists?
Okay, no. You cannot call the results of a policy “bigotry” when the motivation is not. That goes too far. That’s simply redefining bigotry to suit your opinion.
Like I said, marriage includes and excludes people. It discriminates, by definition. Every definition of marriage does that, because it is the nature of the definition. Even you have certain people you want to not be allowed to marry. Does that make your definition bigoted?
But that works in reverse too. If I have a perfectly rational, non-bigoted reason for a policy, then I can turn around and say that the other black box is ALSO not bigoted.