It amazes me that you are unable to seperate the two. Disagreement or dislike does not always equal hate. be blind to that if you want but stop trying to spread it around like it is some inescapable truth.
Mark Cuban's afraid of the witchhunt. he might think he is next target of the witchunt
- Thread starter DutchJazzer
- Start date
It amazes me that you are unable to seperate the two. Disagreement or dislike does not always equal hate. be blind to that if you want but stop trying to spread it around like it is some inescapable truth.
I guess to me this idea that all those that oppose some idea, right, group. movement... (for example gay marriage) must mean that they are bigots and hateful. That they MUST be, no other eplanation. No allowance for different levels or reason for disagreement. Well, it rings hollow and smacks of bias and hypocrisy.
Are those that oppose for reasons based on hate? Absolutely, beyond debate. Does that apply to everyone? No even close. It allows no room for varying opinions, reasons or personalities.
It is not that black and white.
Are those that oppose for reasons based on hate? Absolutely, beyond debate. Does that apply to everyone? No even close. It allows no room for varying opinions, reasons or personalities.
It is not that black and white.
jimmy eat jazz
Well-Known Member
True, but often it does. I believe it is disingenuous to deny that a good deal (though surely not all) of the religious opposition to homosexuality and same-sex marriage stems from religiously inspired animus toward homosexuals. (I'm not saying you deny it.) I believe there are many decent, charitable persons who struggle with this issue, I used to be just like them, and I am prepared to give them time to 'evolve' on this issue. Others--indeed a large number, however, are unrepentant bigots motivated by pure animus toward gays. Religious dogma is a primary contributor to this animus, though again, is not the only contributor, there are other cultural contributors to it.
I do not deny that. In fact I openly admit it. But glad you agree that it is not all hate, just some of it.
As for %s well that is all uninformed opinion that will probably vary with how much one aligns themselves with a particular side.
DutchJazzer
Banned
nowadays the internet isnt as anonymous anymore.
and it is against the law if im not mistaken to discriminate when hiring for jobs. wether it be race or sexual orrientation. right?
DutchJazzer
Banned
we live in a polarizing community. there is no grey.
either your with us or against us mentality.
it is sad but true.
because someone believes same sex marriage is a no-no(whatever the reason or argument), it automatically means you are against any and everything gay!
SAD!
There are plenty of jobs that have requirements that single out individuals based on gender.
Such as the proffesional sports teams (players and cheerleaders) and Hooters.
jimmy eat jazz
Well-Known Member
You will note I took time to say I wasn't accusing you of denying it.
Look, I used to be opposed to same-sex marriage, as late as 2 years ago. It took time, reflection, and listening to others to for me to come around to where I am now. I don't believe I was a bigot, but I was dealing with 40 years of religious programming and being raised and living in a culture with a tradition of animus toward gays. I am happy to allow others who are good people time to struggle with it as well. I also concede that some good people will never come around to where I am. My issue is with the bigots. Those who can't separate the sin from the sinner, etc. I have no patience with them.
I did not think you were singling me out. If I gave that impress it was unintentional. This is just discussion on the principal and not personal.
I also have no patience for those that are bigots. Regardless of issue.
Dislike and hate different spreads on a spectrum, with some overlap. In particular, dislike based on cultural norms leads to treating people as being less worthy of inclusion, and leads to behavior that is identical to hateful behavior. I appreciate you see a difference in the inner feelings of different people engaging in specific behaviors; however I look more strongly at the commonalities of the cultural messages of those behaviors. You seem to about judging their souls; I look at altering their effects.
You can oppose an idea for reasons that can be defended rationally. I have yet to hear of such reasons regarding gay marriage.
The internet never was anonymous.
Yes. However, it is not against to law to discriminate against people you are worried might create tension in the workplace.
ra·tion·al/ˈræʃənl, ˈræʃnl/ Show Spelled [rash-uh-nl, rash-nl] Show IPA
adjective
1. agreeable to reason; reasonable; sensible: a rational plan for economic development.
2. having or exercising reason, sound judgment, or good sense: a calm and rational negotiator.
3. being in or characterized by full possession of one's reason; sane; lucid: The patient appeared perfectly rational.
4. endowed with the faculty of reason: rational beings.
5. of, pertaining to, or constituting reasoning powers: the rational faculty.
So is it rational only if you agree with it? You lay out many arguments in a rational way that I disagree with. This one included. If you truly believe that there is no rational arguments from the other side then I ask you who is the one truly blinded by hate here?
DutchJazzer
Banned
but whats this affirmative action thingie. you cant discriminate based on race right.
so i assume you are not allowed to discriminate against sexual orrientation(homosexual and lesbian)
DutchJazzer
Banned
answer me this honestly.
do you see me as a bigot.
incase you do not know my view. simple: Mariage is for procreaiton. same sex mariages therefore are not allowed because no matter what they do procreation does not happen.
DutchJazzer
Banned
i tend to disagree. i came on the internet in 1992.
aah those where the days.
yes it was anounymous!
Affirmative action actually gives added weight to minorities based on race (for things like college acceptance). One could argue that is a form of racial discrimination.
You are correct about orientation.
Actually, that's not correct. In over half the states in the US, sexuality/gender identity is not a protected class, meaning you can still be fired just for being gay.
Also, in any case of discrimination, it has to be proved that the reasons were purely discriminatory - to use your example, if you have two candidates for a position, you are certainly free to hire whichever you want. However, if you either show a pattern of passing over members of a protected class (you had 100 of those choices, for example, and 99 times you chose the straight individual), then you do potentially open yourself up for a lawsuit.
DutchJazzer
Banned
cus honestly if i was inc harge of hiring people.
and 2 candidates where exactly the same.
but one was in a same sex mariage, i would porbably pass him over,
he would have to be head and shoulders above the other candidate.
Do we agree we are mostly discussing the first and/or second definition? Because I perfectly comfortable with saying that I have seen no arguments opposed to gay marriage that are agreeable to reason, reasonable, sensible, show an exercise of reason, are based on sound judgement, or use good sense. Which arguments against gay marriage would you say are agreeable to reason, reasonable, sensible, show an exercise of reason, are based on sound judgement, or use good sense?
No, just because I have not seen such a rational argument against gay marriage does not mean no such argument exists. However, since many people have attempted to put forth a rational argument against gay marriage and none have done so, I hold that no such argument exists provisionally.