But I Have Friends Who Are Like That

[guywithashovel]

This is something that I have noticed recently.

One example would be the whole gay rights thing. Let's say some anti-gay person is spouting off about how homosexuals should be second class citizens; they shouldn't have their relationships acknowledged as marriage; they shouldn't be given equal protection under the law; they are filthy, bloodsucking perverts, etc. I have noticed that many times when such a person is spouting such bile, he or she will follow it up with something like, "Now, I'd like to say that I have many friends who are gay."

Another example would be something I saw on Fox News a few months ago. A few of the anchors were talking about people who don't follow any religion and/or do not have a belief in a deity. One of the anchors said that such people should be treated like trolls, and that everyone should constantly harass and ridicule them. Then, in the very next breath, she said, "Now, I have to say that many of my closest friends are atheists."

Now, I don't know about any of you, but if someone called me a pervert, a troll, said that I shouldn't have equal rights, or anything else of the nature, then I probably wouldn't be interested in being friends with that person. I'm not gay, so I probably won't ever have to deal with any of the stuff they have to deal with, but I am one of the (roughly) 15 percent of Americans who do not identify with a religion. If some religious person said the sort of things about me that the aforementioned Fox News anchor said about people like me, then I probably wouldn't consider that person a friend.

[Boozy]

There are two possibilities here:

a) These intolerant windbags have no gay and/or atheist friends, they know they don't, and they're just lying, or

b) The gay and atheist people whom they've met in the past have behaved like mature adults and were able to maintain a civil conversation with them, and now these windbags are dumb enough to think they are actually liked.

Al Franken tells a funny story about meeting Ann Coulter. He despises her and everything that she believes in, but when he met her at a public event and was introduced, he politely shook her hand and moved on. It was an inappropriate time and place to make a scene. Later, she was quoted in a paper as saying that she's "friendly" with Al Franken. He turned it to his advantage by saying that "Ann Coulter is so bad that even people whom she considers friends have been known to call her a 'bitch' and 'a horror show of epic proportions'." He was quoting himself, of course.

[AFPheonix]

The other possibility is that on some level, these people know that their opinions are complete horseshit, and are trying to make themselves not look as bad as they know they do. It's a good thing, it means that even the most intolerant of people are starting to get a wake-up call that the times are changing and they don't get to let their intolerance for some things hang out as far as they used to.

There's still a long way to go yet, though.

[fireheart17]

I hate, hate, HATE those people who spout off homophobic comments and then say that they have gay friends. It makes those who do have gay friends and aren't homophobic look bad.

I have a friend who came out as bisexual to me late high school. I was the first person she told. My reaction? I actually asked her if she wanted help talking to her parents about it (she hasn't come out to them yet about it because her parents were brought up as Catholics and so was she).

At uni, in my first year, I met a guy. He was a great guy, very friendly. He then turned out to be gay. My opinion of him didn't change. If anything, I'm proud of him now as he leads the queer group at my uni. He has a good mix of friends, male and female, some are gay, some aren't. If anything, if you looked at him or had a five minute convo with him, you couldn't even tell he was gay.

So why am I telling all of that? Because these two are examples of why I hate homophobes who claim to have gay friends. Neither of those two came out and stated that they were gay when we first met and my opinions throughout high school on gay people were mostly "They're just human, just that they prefer the same sex rather than the opposite sex. So they don't procreate, big deal. It's called artificial insemination, egg donors, surrogacy."
I just hate those who can't find a legitimate reason as to why homosexuals shouldn't exist in our society.

[smileyeagle1021]

To date I know only enough people to count on one hand who are against gay marriage who can say they have gay friends... of those, all but one are against gay marriage because they don't think the government has any place in marriage at all, that government should issue civil unions only. The one who is pro marriage anti gay marriage still supports civil unions... and that's because he does have the legitimate concern that if it is called marriage by the government and proper safeguards put in place churches may be required to perform ceremonies they do not agree with... and as much as I want to see gay marriage become a reality, I don't want to force people to do anything against their will.

[BlaqueKatt]

and that's because he does have the legitimate concern that if it is called marriage by the government and proper safeguards put in place churches may be required to perform ceremonies they do not agree with... and as much as I want to see gay marriage become a reality, I don't want to force people to do anything against their will.

it is not a "legitimate concern" because people don't realize that marriage and wedding are two totally separate things(look up the definitions of the words-the religious leaders have tried to use the confusion to rally support to their cause).

The wedding is the ceremony-religious or not (which is the only thing the church would be involved in) i, marriage(as defined by the dictionary) is the social institution under which a man and woman establish their decision to live as husband and wife(or wife and wife/husband and husband) by legal commitments. Which means the government has to be a part of it. The marriage license is a legal document issued by your local government-you can have a wedding without one, but you are not legally "married" without one

wedding is the term for the ceremony uniting couples in wedlock. The government is not part of this, and would not be able to "force" a church to perform one.

When I got married(the first time)-I was turned down by 5 different judges, no reason they didn't want to perform the wedding ceremony, as I was able by the state of Wisconsin to be legally married the law did not force anyone to perform the wedding, I had to keep looking to find someone that would-any officiant can say, "nope don't want to" for any reason or no reason-they can't be forced into it.

see the difference now.

[smileyeagle1021]

BlaqueKatt, I never said it was a logical concern. Marriage and wedding are two entirely different things, but let's be honest, it wouldn't be the first time the government has told a church to change it's own definition of marriage and to change what weddings it does. Look at early Utah history, the federal government told the mormon church that they could no longer recognize plural marriage and that they must stop performing the wedding ceremonies for plural marriage. Through that lense I can understand why quite a few mormons would be concerned that if gay marriage is legalized without any type of written in stone protections for the churches that the government may do the same thing to them again, except this time rather than telling them which marriages they can't recognize and weddings they can't perform will be telling them which marriages they must recognize and which weddings they must perform.

And if you've read my posts in other threads you know that I am most definitely not a big fan of the LDS church, I most definitely do support gay marriage, but in this case I can definitely see why they have the concern (even if it is probably going to turn out to be all for nothing).

[BookstoreEscapee]

rather than telling them which marriages they can't recognize and weddings they can't perform will be telling them which marriages they must recognize and which weddings they must perform.

Churches can refuse to perform any wedding they want, though. If I wanted to get married in a Catholic church, they have every right to say no, because I am not Catholic. The same logic should apply to gay marriage.

[Greenday]

Churches can refuse to perform any wedding they want, though. If I wanted to get married in a Catholic church, they have every right to say no, because I am not Catholic. The same logic should apply to gay marriage.

Seeing as that's a private matter, and a marriage in a church means diddly squat, I believe that's their right.

It's when you actually sign the forms and make it legally binding, then it matters.

I hate it when people try to say they have friends of the persuasion they are bashing. No you don't, you aren't fooling anyone.

[BlaqueKatt]

it wouldn't be the first time the government has told a church to change it's own definition of marriage and to change what weddings it does. Look at early Utah history, the federal government told the mormon church that they could no longer recognize plural marriage and that they must stop performing the wedding ceremonies for plural marriage.

and the government had the right to do so-they were supporting felonious activity-there are laws against bigamy/plural marriages(personally I don't agree with it but it's still a law), it's akin to the feds stepping in and telling certain religious groups that marrying adults to children is not allowed(it has been done-several times).

[RecoveringKinkoid]

Yes, that's the natural progression from idiot closet racists saying "Some of my best friends are black."

People who say "some of my best friends are black/gay/athiests/Amway salesmen know absolutely zero black/gay/athiests/Amway salesmen.

[smileyeagle1021]

Churches can refuse to perform any wedding they want, though. If I wanted to get married in a Catholic church, they have every right to say no, because I am not Catholic. The same logic should apply to gay marriage.

Very true... yet for some reason gay rights activists seem to be resistant to codifying what is already law into new law. Nothing frustrates me more than seeing gay rights groups flounder around because they left that out of whatever law or proposal they are trying to get passed. Yes, it is an irrational fear for the Christian right to have... but it is a fear they have none the less that could be so easily eased by simply adding a few lines to any gay marriage bill that no church is required to recognize the state sanctioned marriages and won't be required to hold the ceremonies... yet no one wants to do that. Yeah, it's pointless, but if putting those lines into the law is the only way to get equal rights, then damnit put those fucking lines into the law.

[Slytovhand]

and the government had the right to do so-they were supporting felonious activity-there are laws against bigamy/plural marriages(personally I don't agree with it but it's still a law), it's akin to the feds stepping in and telling certain religious groups that marrying adults to children is not allowed(it has been done-several times).

I know we've just swapped threads, but....

If a 'wedding' and a 'marriage' are 2 different fish, where the 'marriage' is the legal entity, and the 'wedding' is merely a ceremony, they why couldn't a religious organisation have 'bigamous' weddings? - ie, not lawful, but certainly social constructs.

[BlaqueKatt]

then why couldn't a religious organisation have 'bigamous' weddings? - ie, not lawful, but certainly social constructs.

because there are standing laws against it already. The government cannot allow any organization to say "we're going to support something that you have laws against-so just look the other way"

To put it another way-is a 40 year-old pedophile marrying a 5 year-old girl legal?
No-but why can't they have their chosen social construct there are religious groups that support it?

and it's not "apples to oranges"-both bigamy and pedophilia(acting on it) are currently illegal(hence age of consent for marriage), so you can't say "well just let them have their illegal unions"