I suppose you could call it ignorance and fear instead of hate. Would that actually seem better to you?
I think it’s good to note that humans are not all one thing. A otherwise decent person can still be dead wrong in some facets of their attitude and character.
Would you say that people who didn’t want black Americans to vote were hateful? What if they didn’t want blacks eating in the same diner as they did or using the same water fountain? Was that hateful? How did that attitude affect their ability to be a loving parent or spouse, or a good neighbor? {Providing their
neighbor was white}
Look at the history of civil rights in this country and the words of MLK who reminded us that the sides on an issue of human rights and equality is aiding the negative. It’s one thing to have a feeling and an opinion, but our actions still affect others, ad actively opposing SSM is a hateful act. Period.
This thread is yet another example why contortions over whether some particular action is motivated by the indefinable concept of “hate” or not are the least productive forms of discussion possible. If you think that it makes some difference whether or not someone’s bigotry comes from an ineffable shade of their soul (that apparently cannot be sussed out in any way by examining the existence of said bigotry) then you are just spewing noise out of your word-hole to no productive end.
Fine, I’ll bravely take a stand against shooting people and vandalism and such.
That said, opposition to gay marriage remains the playpen of the ignorant. If you’re indifferent, that’s fine - we all have to set our personal priorities - but engaging in active opposition… well, you’re kind of a bigot. Sorry.
No I didn’t, despite your silly claim. That’s okay, we understand. If you gotta keep hijacking the thread with your Respect Mah Authoriteh schtick, well, shine on, tom, shine on.
But there’s no objective standard for restricting lots of marriages, such as multiple marriages, or among those related by blood who are incapable of having children, or even, as the right-wingers like to say, among humans and animals.
Do you support all those? Or do you have some kind of objective standard for excluding them?
The current legal structures surrounding bigamous and polygamous marriages are woefully inadequate to deal with issues related to the partial or complete breakup of the marriage contract. This could certainly change but there’s a lot of work to be done.
Various sticky problems arise when the state decides that it will sanction incestuous marriages for infertile couples only, the most obvious being what would happen if the medical diagnosis of infertility turns out to be wrong.
And animals, like children, the comatose and the dead, are deemed unable to give adequately considered consent. One could make a counterargument that consent is not considered an issue when deciding to kill animals for food, but that too is a much larger and messier can of worms to open. (Also, I doubt they asked the worms whether they wanted to be canned.)
None of those require a religious view at all. Some could eventually come to pass - I’d be surprised if polygamous marriages didn’t get serious consideration within the next century - and some (animal marriage) are unlikely to change.
[li]Chick-Fil-A’s president isn’t just being criticized for his comments, but for his financial support of hate groups. The Right keeps trying to gloss over that and pretend that he’s only getting flak for speaking out, but that’s just an attempt to divert attention from what he’s actually done.[/li][/QUOTE]
This is a primo example of the left’s smear tactics. Why are organizations that are pro-traditional marriage automatically labelled hate groups? That sort of labeling is far more indicative of hate tactics than Cathy’s donations.
Just because there was some nut out there who thought “Kill Bush” tees would be funny, doesn’t mean that (a) that person is representative of any larger group, (b) that anybody besides Google’s search engines actually read his stuff at the time, and (c) that anybody would have been in a position have heard enough about this BS at the time to repudiate it.
Oh, and:
That cite fails to support your claim.
In general, the left has long called bullshit on calls for ‘civility,’ as it seems that quite often calling people out on unpleasant truths brings out the civility police in the MSM.
And your cite says nothing about lefties calling for civility, but rather for ceasing and desisting from language and images specifically suggestive of violence and murder, such as putting opponents in the crosshairs of a gun sight. That’s a whole 'nother thing.
So we lefties aren’t calling for civility in the matter of Chick-Fil-A because we, in general, don’t call for civility. End of story, end of game.
Now if someone publishes a gun target with a picture of S. Truett Cathy at its center, or says it would be a good idea to blow up Chick-Fil-A stores, then yeah, we should speak against that. And undoubtedly will, if we hear about it.
I remember one clarion call for “civility.” One of the talking heads on CBS’s *Sunday Morning *interviewed Mrs Clarence Thomas, after the Bush V Gore decision but before Shrub’s inauguration.
Mrs Thomas expressed her hope that DC would become more civil & polite, now that her party was back in the White House. Of course, most of the ugliness of the preceding years had been inspired by the Republicans’ long & expensive fight to impeach Clinton. The interviewer ignored that fact. Also, she didn’t ask about Justice Thomas’s possible conflict of interest. His wife had been employed by the Heritage Society, vetting candidates for political appointments should Bush take office; his decision made wifie’s job secure. But that was OK.
I really used to enjoy Sunday Morning. Haven’t watched it since then…
I can’t tell if this is disingenuous or if you actually do believe that “pro-traditional marriage” organizations are simply promoting traditional marriage without having any position on non-traditional marriage. Do you also think that white supremacists aren’t racist and genuinely just want to talk about how awesome white people are?
