Anti-Gay Marriage

[eclipse]

Hey, at least ridiculing a position has a chance to change someone's mind. Just because you don't like the tone of how someone says something doesn't change whether or not that person is right.

Perhaps the problem is that you're expecting I give homophobes some kind of deference that they don't deserve and you can't handle their not getting it. At least, this is the impression I get.

Actually, it won't. You'll end up becoming one of "the enemy", which means they're less likely to listen. Hatred cannot stop hatred.

I'm afraid that you'll perpetuate the cycle of hatred. If the cycle is to end, why can't you be the one to stop it?

If two gay Christians want to get married by their church, I think the church should be forced to marry them. One side will lose in the end, but the side which disregards human rights (the church) should be the rightful loser.

I'm pretty sure some of the Unitarian churches would have no problem with it - why NOT have it somewhere where you won't have to make people uncomfortable for your sake?

But when you do that, you absolutely run the risk of tacitly supporting their bigotry. I mean, I know coming from me this is going to sound old, and nobody is going to take it seriously, but straight up being nice to people won't always help. I have friends and people I am nice to who believe awful things, and not a single one of them has changed their horrible horrible opinions. On the other hand, of the people I've been far more aggressive with, I've seen far more success.

I am at a point in my life where I actually consider terminating friendships I have had for years because those friends refuse to change their sexist, racist, homophobic, etc beliefs, even on a fairly minor level, because in many cases I can't change peoples' minds by being nice.

Now this is not to say it can't be done. It might even be just as good as being aggressive. The point is, making it clear that horrible opinions are not acceptable to you does actually work to discourage horrible opinions.

I guess it depends on what you mean by shitting on though. Regardless though, if you can't see the difference between calling somebody a fag for being gay, and calling someone a homophobic asshole for doing that, I don't know what to tell you.

This isn't a team fight - just because you're not completely and utterly against one thing doesn't mean you're for it, either. There's a time and a place to talk to someone earnestly about it. You aren't going to get a positive reaction by humiliating/degrading the bigot - you'll simply sink to their level. Someone who hurls insults at a bigot is still someone who hurls insults.

[Constable Reggie]

Well, I for one find regulation of church practice in order to sate the luxurious demands of a group to be entirely absurd.

[Chiki]

I was using a hyperbolic example to emphasize the ridiculousness of Olwen's initial claim. After all, if same-sex couples (a group that the church does not exactly agree with) can force the church to marry them, why not Buddhists? Hinduists? Goat-demon worshippers? Why even give the church a choice in their practice?

Forcing the church to conduct wedding ceremonies via government regulation for groups that they have fundamental disagreements with is absurd.

Because they aren't Christians.

Eclipse, people often spend their lives as members of a particular church. Some people just don't want to marry in any church. Would it not be unfair for a church to deny them marriage?

[Defeatist Elitist]

Actually, it won't. You'll end up becoming one of "the enemy", which means they're less likely to listen. Hatred cannot stop hatred.

I'm afraid that you'll perpetuate the cycle of hatred. If the cycle is to end, why can't you be the one to stop it?

I don't think we're suggesting anybody start a campaign of hatred against homophobes. What we're suggesting is that when people do homophobic shit, they get called out for it and people explain that it's unnacceptable, just as people should do for racist shit, or sexist shit. I'm not saying you should deny them services or treat them badly, I'm literally just saying you should make it clear that you don't respect their opinion on the subject. You don't have to say you don't respect them, I think you should respect everyone, but I don't think every opinion should be respected.

This isn't a team fight - just because you're not completely and utterly against one thing doesn't mean you're for it, either. There's a time and a place to talk to someone earnestly about it. You aren't going to get a positive reaction by humiliating/degrading the bigot - you'll simply sink to their level. Someone who hurls insults at a bigot is still someone who hurls insults.

I mean, the fact that you consider that hurling insults is one thing, but even if it was, you must understand their is a key difference there. One is harrassing somebody because they're doing something that has no negative affect on anyone else, and the other is reprimanding someone for doing something socially destructive. There is a difference between the two.

Edited May 4, 2013 by Defeatist Elitist

[Constable Reggie]

I doubt a significant number of Christian churches consider same-sex couples to be Christian, either.

[I.M. Gei]

Sorry (wait, there's nothing to apologize for here), but asking people to respect someone's malicious, homophobic views is quite possibly the least constructive thing you can do and serves no purpose. There's no such thing as being "close-minded" when it comes to being intolerant of bigotry.

As a gay Christian commentator from Louisiana said, there’s a vast difference between being told you’re acting hateful and being told God hates you.

Edited May 4, 2013 by Black★Rock Shooter

[Defeatist Elitist]

I doubt a significant number of Christian churches consider same-sex couples to be Christian, either.

So just to nip this in the bud, since people are still talking about it, as far as I know there isn't a single place where gay marriage has been legalized where churches have been forced to marry homosexual couples. I mean, for all I know there could be, but it's not even remotely likely to happen in the US, so it's not really relevent to the legalization of same sex marriage in the US.

[Constable Reggie]

If you don't want to partake in a discussion of a system of forced wedding ceremonies and everything that surrounds it, then I suggest you simply ignore it instead of trying to curb it.

Edited May 4, 2013 by Constable Reggie

[eclipse]

Because they aren't Christians.

Eclipse, people often spend their lives as members of a particular church. Some people just don't want to marry in any church. Would it not be unfair for a church to deny them marriage?

I think it's the church's call. There's a bajillion different variables, and going into all possible combinations would take forever. For example, one of my ex-boyfriend's churches was super-traditional, to the point where I think they'd kick you out if you hinted that you were gay. Another church I went to seemed cool enough until they started calling it "God's victory" every time the government blocked some aspect of gay marriage (notice the past tense). I honestly don't know how my current pastor would react if you asked him, but I think it should be left up to him.

I don't think we're suggesting anybody start a campaign of hatred against homophobes. What we're suggesting is that when people do homophobic shit, they get called out for it and people explain that it's unnacceptable, just as people should do for racist shit, or sexist shit. I'm not saying you should deny them services or treat them badly, I'm literally just saying you should make it clear that you don't respect their opinion on the subject. You don't have to say you don't respect them, I think you should respect everyone, but I don't think every opinion should be respected.

I mean, the fact that you consider that hurling insults is one thing, but even if it was, you must understand their is a key difference there. One is harrassing somebody because they're doing something that has no negative affect on anyone else, and the other is reprimanding someone for doing something socially destructive. There is a difference between the two.

I don't mind if it's done in a respectful manner. Using it as an excuse to be an ass to someone isn't acceptable. There's a huge difference between, "Hey, man, that's not cool," (in private) and, "What the fuck is wrong with you, you homophobic dipshit?!" (yelled in front of a group of strangers). A bad reaction to the former means that you're probably better off not hanging around that person.

Sorry (wait, there's nothing to apologize for here), but asking people to respect someone's malicious, homophobic views is quite possibly the least constructive thing you can do and serves no purpose. There's no such thing as being "close-minded" when it comes to being intolerant of bigotry.

As a gay Christian commentator from Louisiana said, there’s a vast difference between being told you’re acting hateful and being told God hates you.

. . .I think I addressed this above. There's a way of doing it, and acting just as shitty as they are isn't how to do it. This isn't a matter of us-versus-them.

So just to nip this in the bud, since people are still talking about it, as far as I know there isn't a single place where gay marriage has been legalized where churches have been forced to marry homosexual couples. I mean, for all I know there could be, but it's not even remotely likely to happen in the US, so it's not really relevent to the legalization of same sex marriage in the US.

I hope you're right. I really do.

Edited May 4, 2013 by eclipse

[Baldrick]

I always let people have their say, it's actually pretty difficult not to. In fact, I usually try to start with tact. I mean, I am a human being. I know how to communicate with other human beings. I don't think any of us here spend all our lives yelling at everybody who disagrees with us on anything. Please don't post telling us how to conduct basic human interaction, I'm pretty sure we've got that covered.

edit: I get where you're coming from, because yes you are partially right, but I just find it odd you immediately assume that I have no grasp of how to effectively communicate with other human beings.

I was just putting my two cents in on the "changing minds" subtopic :/ I am wondering where I said I was talking about you personally, or that one shouldn't be assertive when disagreeing with an opinion... you should seriously chill out. You're seeing ad hominem attacks where there are none.

[Defeatist Elitist]

I don't mind if it's done in a respectful manner. Using it as an excuse to be an ass to someone isn't acceptable. There's a huge difference between, "Hey, man, that's not cool," (in private) and, "What the fuck is wrong with you, you homophobic dipshit?!" (yelled in front of a group of strangers). A bad reaction to the former means that you're probably better off not hanging around that person.

Except literally nobody is saying it's an excuse to yell shit like that in front of a group of strangers. See my point about basic social interaction skills. If somebody is against gay marriage I'm not going to flip my shit at them in public, but I am going to explain to them why they're wrong and why they shouldn't say shit like that.

On the other hand, if somebody is harrassing somebody for being gay or whatever, I think it's perfectly acceptable to tell them to fuck off. There's a good chance I wouldn't do it because I'm a huge coward who would be afraid of the negative social repurcussions of doing it, but a better person than me would do it.

I was just putting my two cents in on the "changing minds" subtopic :/ I am wondering where I said I was talking about you personally, or that one shouldn't be assertive when disagreeing with an opinion... you should seriously chill out. You're seeing ad hominem attacks where there are none.

Yeah, I said "I", but I guess my point is that your base assumption shouldn't be "human beings don't understand human interaction". I didn't see it as a direct attack on me or anything. Also, again, I don't think you meant it as an attack. What I'm trying to do is point out that what you said IS sort of an attack whether you meant it or not.

edit: It's just sort of a pet peeve of mine, like when people say "that's just your opinion". I know it's meant in one way, but the implication is sort of bizarre, and it doesn't contribute anything because it's pretty obvious.

Edited May 4, 2013 by Balcerzak
merged double posts

[Chiki]

Consider the case of a hypothetical man named John. John was baptized by a church after he was born, and ever since then he has been an active member of the church for 25 years.

At the age of 13 he realized he was gay. He got engaged at the age of 24. He asked the church to marry him and his boyfriend, but the church refused, forcing John to complain to the government.

Should their marriage be forced by the government in this case?

I say yes. Ah, but one could say that it's the church's decision to marry them.

But that's flat out discrimination according to both the Constitution and common sense morals.

[Constable Reggie]

If same-sex marriage becomes legal, who gives a shit what the church thinks? The church doesn't legally declare you married, the government does.

But if we're assuming you knew that, and you're talking about a religious wedding ceremony, then no, they shouldn't be forced to conduct a religious ceremony because that would be a disgusting infringement in freedom of excercising religion.

Edited May 4, 2013 by Constable Reggie

[eclipse]

Dude, double posting.

Except literally nobody is saying it's an excuse to yell shit like that in front of a group of strangers. See my point about basic social interaction skills. If somebody is against gay marriage I'm not going to flip my shit at them in public, but I am going to explain to them why they're wrong and why they shouldn't say shit like that.

On the other hand, if somebody is harrassing somebody for being gay or whatever, I think it's perfectly acceptable to tell them to fuck off. There's a good chance I wouldn't do it because I'm a huge coward who would be afraid of the negative social repurcussions of doing it, but a better person than me would do it.

Look backwards to what I replied to originally (bold mine):

If a homophobe says that, it's okay to call him whatever you want. It's just I don't think that everybody who isn't active enough in fighting for the homosexuals' cause should be labeled as a homophobe and that not every religious who doesn't personally like homosexuality should be labeled as a bigot. I personally don't like it, but I don't go around preaching hatred towards homosexuality. I am religious, but to me, a gay atheist who is honest and does good things is way better than a serial killer or a bully who do whatever they want justifying themselves with "helping God".

No matter how screwed-up someone viewpoint is, calling them whatever you want will do more harm than good if you're humiliating/demeaning them. Getting them off to the side and explaining what your problem is will usually have better results.

If it's a matter of getting someone out of a bad situation, then I'm all for finding the fastest way possible to resolving it without inflicting harm to yourself/the person in trouble. I think this is doable without being an asshole yourself.

[Dwalin2010]

There's no such thing as being "close-minded" when it comes to being intolerant of bigotry.

There IS. Behaving in such a manner makes you no better than those you hate. Being aggressive in the name of ANY ideal casts a shadow upon the ideal in question, in my opinion. Rude Christians and rude homosexuality supporters are the same kind of people. I have always disliked it when people are proud of defending their ideals in an aggressive manner and seek a reason to disagree even when there isn't any. And, as I said, for me that applies to BOTH sides in most of these debates.

[Defeatist Elitist]

Dude, double posting.

Look backwards to what I replied to originally (bold mine):

No matter how screwed-up someone viewpoint is, calling them whatever you want will do more harm than good if you're humiliating/demeaning them. Getting them off to the side and explaining what your problem is will usually have better results.

If it's a matter of getting someone out of a bad situation, then I'm all for finding the fastest way possible to resolving it without inflicting harm to yourself/the person in trouble. I think this is doable without being an asshole yourself.

I guess I just don't interpret that statement remotely the same way.

Basically, my point is this: if somebody says "I don't think niggers should be allowed to vote", you would not be out of line to tell them they were being a racist prick. The fact that people will do stuff like this means racism is less prevalent. I mean, say what you like, but making something socially unnacceptable tends to decrease its occurence. By the same token, if somebody says "I don't think fags should be allowed to marry", and you call them a homophobic asshole, you're not out of line. If we all did that, there would be far fewer homophobic people, because homophobia would have become completely socially unnacceptable.

Edit; There is a fairly constant effort by people to make everything balanced when it really doesn't need to be. Evolution happened, creationists do not have equal credibility to scientists. Vaccines work, alternative medicine quacks are not just as good as doctors. And fervent same sex marriage supporters are not just as bad as the Westboro Baptist Church. Both sides don't have to be equally bad. The world does not work like that. Sometimes one side is actually just right. Now, obviously, gay marriage is a morality issue, and all morality is subjective, but hey. The truth is not always somewhere in the middle.

Edited May 4, 2013 by Defeatist Elitist

[eclipse]

I guess I just don't interpret that statement remotely the same way.

Basically, my point is this: if somebody says "I don't think niggers should be allowed to vote", you would not be out of line to tell them they were being a racist prick. The fact that people will do stuff like this means racism is less prevalent. I mean, say what you like, but making something socially unnacceptable tends to decrease its occurence. By the same token, if somebody says "I don't think fags should be allowed to marry", and you call them a homophobic asshole, you're not out of line. If we all did that, there would be far fewer homophobic people, because homophobia would have become completely socially unnacceptable.

Or they'd band together into some sort of group that I'd really rather not have around. There's better ways of getting the point across than flat-out insulting them. I see a racial divide on a daily basis; insulting someone every time they do it will result in no one listening to you, no matter how well-intentioned you are. Discussing WHY that person feels like that will usually go over better; people usually like to talk about themselves, and you'll get a better idea of what makes them tick.

[Defeatist Elitist]

Or they'd band together into some sort of group that I'd really rather not have around. There's better ways of getting the point across than flat-out insulting them. I see a racial divide on a daily basis; insulting someone every time they do it will result in no one listening to you, no matter how well-intentioned you are. Discussing WHY that person feels like that will usually go over better; people usually like to talk about themselves, and you'll get a better idea of what makes them tick.

Yes, as I've said before, maybe discussing why that person feels that way will help change things. I've found most of the time I take that route I find that either the person is unwilling to give the actual reason they feel that way, or they don't have a real reason. I then find they refuse to change their mind no matter how reasonably I try to argue with them. I am perfectly willing to accept that in some cases your method will work, and in fact, I still try to use it for a lot of shit. However, I also know for certain that the other method works as well sometimes, and in certain situations I think it's the better option.

Either way, your argument isn't "you're just as bad either way", what you're arguing is "homophobes are bad people, people who insult homophobes just aren't going to effectively change their mind", am I right?

edit: Like, you seriously underestimate the effectiveness of assertive dissaproval of something.

Edited May 4, 2013 by Defeatist Elitist

[eclipse]

Yes, as I've said before, maybe discussing why that person feels that way will help change things. I've found most of the time I take that route I find that either the person is unwilling to give the actual reason they feel that way, or they don't have a real reason. I then find they refuse to change their mind no matter how reasonably I try to argue with them. I am perfectly willing to accept that in some cases your method will work, and in fact, I still try to use it for a lot of shit. However, I also know for certain that the other method works as well sometimes, and in certain situations I think it's the better option.

Either way, your argument isn't "you're just as bad either way", what you're arguing is "homophobes are bad people, people who insult homophobes just aren't going to effectively change their mind", am I right?

More like, "Being a fuckwit to someone because they said/believe in something you absolutely do not agree with isn't acceptable." This goes for more than homophobia.

[Defeatist Elitist]

More like, "Being a fuckwit to someone because they said/believe in something you absolutely do not agree with isn't acceptable." This goes for more than homophobia.

Yeah, I don't really see what your argument is. Obviously being a fuckwit is probably bad. You seem to be saying that insulting someone for any reason is being a fuckwit.

If insulting people for being homophobic reduced overall homophobia, would you still have a problem with it? You seem to think it doesn't, I think it does. If you wouldn't have a problem with it, then our argument is about whether it's effective. If you would still have a problem with it than I have no idea what to tell you.

[eclipse]

Yeah, I don't really see what your argument is. Obviously being a fuckwit is probably bad. You seem to be saying that insulting someone for any reason is being a fuckwit.

If insulting people for being homophobic reduced overall homophobia, would you still have a problem with it? You seem to think it doesn't, I think it does. If you wouldn't have a problem with it, then our argument is about whether it's effective. If you would still have a problem with it than I have no idea what to tell you.

It's a bit more complicated than that. An overall reduction is good. If the greater outcome is that society is primed to think that being insulting is the most effective way to get people to agree with you, then I wouldn't be in favor of it.

[Defeatist Elitist]

It's a bit more complicated than that. An overall reduction is good. If the greater outcome is that society is primed to think that being insulting is the most effective way to get people to agree with you, then I wouldn't be in favor of it.

Okay, so I guess we agree on that then. I don't think insulting is the most effective way to get people to agree with you either. I do think however that it is part of one effective method that should be employed in certain situations. I also am pretty much positive that that won't be the greater outcome.

[Balcerzak]

I'm just going to drop this and this in here and go on the record as stating that the condemnation of homosexuality by some segments of the Christian church by is a tricky thing at best.

I'll also go on record as stating that individual churches can be as bigotted as they want insofar as they don't commit or condone any crimes. In fact the more bigoted the better. That way people will be more likely to be driven to the churches that actually preach love and acceptance, and treating your neighbor as yourself. You know, focusing on what Jesus himself is purported to have said, rather than any of the handful of inconclusive things Paul might have said for him.

[Baldrick]

Yeah, I said "I", but I guess my point is that your base assumption shouldn't be "human beings don't understand human interaction". I didn't see it as a direct attack on me or anything. Also, again, I don't think you meant it as an attack. What I'm trying to do is point out that what you said IS sort of an attack whether you meant it or not.

If I said "it's wrong to murder people" in this thread, I would be rightfully scoffed at; but that doesn't mean nobody has ever been murdered. Similarly, I wish I lived in a world where everyone in the world always respects everyone else, but unfortunately, we don't. Any attack that can be construed from my words is directed at those who don't respect others.

[Defeatist Elitist]

If I said "it's wrong to murder people" in this thread, I would be rightfully scoffed at; but that doesn't mean nobody has ever been murdered. Similarly, I wish I lived in a world where everyone in the world always respects everyone else, but unfortunately, we don't. Any attack that can be construed from my words is directed at those who don't respect others.

I agree. I guess I just don't think it necessarily needed to be said.