Bert and Ernie agenda

[Gravekeeper]

Why because she is choosing not to vote yes?

Let's take my earlier example of a sports team wanting to use my tax dollars to build a stadium in my town.

That is not honestly a valid comparison as sports teams are not a human rights issue.

Again:

As gay marriage becomes even more acceptable people in her faith will change.

If that is, in fact, the reason. Then that is harmful as that is inaction in the face of injustice. I do admit that I worded my point badly ( I didn't mean "active" as in out with the protest signs ) but that is, in fact, willfull and harmful apathy.

Hateful? No. But harmful, yes.

[smileyeagle1021]

I think, Smiley, Andara and I agree with you that opposing gay marriage is HARMFUL. It is not, however HATEFUL. It is no less damaging, but it doesn't have the same motive.

I'd throw out that it's not that different than drunk driving.
Drunk drivers do not hate pedestrians, drunk drivers do not hate other drivers, but that does not make them any less responsible for the harm they cause.

[Andara Bledin]

Not quite drunk drivers. More like their friends who don't do anything to stop them, though they have the opportunity.

^-.-^

[Hyena Dandy]

I'd throw out that it's not that different than drunk driving.
Drunk drivers do not hate pedestrians, drunk drivers do not hate other drivers, but that does not make them any less responsible for the harm they cause.

They are entirely responsible. But they shouldn't be considered murderers, because intent matters.

What I have been arguing is that she does not hate. She harms, but she does not hate. Knowing the reason for the harm, steps can be taken to avoid it in the future (drunk drivers can be rehabilitated, take classes, go to AA). I am not arguing, as I said, that she is not harmful, or that she shoulders no blame. I am arguing that you, and others, can explain in a reasonable manner what is wrong with her point.

You're an activist, you say. I'm an activist too. I consider it my duty to get people who are on the fence, or who disagree with me, to agree. Activism isn't just insulting people who you think are wrong, its determining why they are wrong, and how best to convince them of what is right. Hateful people cannot be convinced. She is not hateful. She has stated her reason. It is your job, as an activist, to explain why that reason is false. Not to yell at her and insult her, which will just solidify her position even more.

[HYHYBT]

I'm just disappointed, both at the direction the thread has taken in arguing over whether another poster is hateful or not and in that poster's running off rather than answering a simple, highly relevant question. (That being why, *given that churches are otherwise free to discriminate any way they wish on marriage*, gay marriage would be different in that regard.)

[Gravekeeper]

I'm just disappointed, both at the direction the thread has taken in arguing over whether another poster is hateful or not and in that poster's running off rather than answering a simple, highly relevant question.

It really could have been settled pages ago, yes. -.-

[PepperElf]

I've been away from this thread for a few days for several reasons

1) I had to spend time at work

2) Dragon Age is fucking addictive. (and I now hate Steve Valentie cos... his voice work for Alistair makes it fucking hard to be mean to him - even when I'm playing a "bitch" character)

3) I had no idea it had gotten this popular.

4) I do get tired of being online and circulate to other websites. in fact most of my customer-related websites aren't on my safari "top sites" anymore so I have to manually type in the address. So I don't always remember to go back.




So now I'm reading the new pages and I'll try to respond to things that stick out to me.


1) That people think you're a hater for not supporting their own personal agenda or cause.

Not true. For all the throwing around of things about woman's rights, or other causes... there ARE causes that each and every single person just doesn't get into.

Sometimes it's because they disagree with the cause, sometimes it's because they just don't care about it much. And yes, some will say "see that means you hate this because you don't care about MY cause"

Bull shit. Yes YOU might feel your cause is worthy and is the right way, but that doesn't mean it IS the right way. It just means you feel it's right and that anyone who doesn't agree with you is being judged over it.

For example... One of the causes / agendas I support is the DAV - Disabled American Veterans. Does that mean anyone who doesn't give them money or support them hates disabled vets? No, no one would even THINK to say that.

But oh my god. Just say that you aren't going to support gay marriage and suddenly it's a fucking dog pile on you for how much you hate, how much you aren't supporting the "right" decision, and how horrible you are.


And yes there WILL be people here who still think, "but my way IS the right way therefore it's OK to judge you for not supporting it".... that doesn't make it true. That's just an attempt to justify your own hatred and intolerance.


2) That no one will try suing a church over not performing a marriage the church disagrees with.

Another fallacy. People have already tried getting churches to lose their tax-free status for not jumping on the pro-gay-marriage bandwagon.

And since I've already found attempts online of people suing - or trying to - sue churches for not performing gay marriages it's hard to say "it won't happen" when it already has.

[Mikkel]

And since I've already found attempts online of people suing - or trying to - sue churches for not performing gay marriages it's hard to say "it won't happen" when it already has.

Do you have links? I'm guessing it was laughed out of court. Most countries have religious freedom and I'm quite sure that USA has.

[Andara Bledin]

The fact that people file lawsuits is mostly irrelevant. People file stupid lawsuits about things they can't possibly win all the time.

It's when people start winning lawsuits like this that it actually means something. But if they're losing lawsuits like this, then it means the system is working as it should and fears based on the existence of those defeated lawsuits are unfounded.

^-.-^

[PepperElf]

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&s....17.5.1.1l26l0

there's been cases for suits over not performing and over performing.

however what i said was if it became a right people would sue over that. since people already are suing it seems, my suggestion was not incorrect.

I don't remember suggesting that they would win, but that there could end up becoming a precedent where the government ends up trying to tell churches what they can and cannot do. which is in effect a violation of the first amendment.

[Andara Bledin]

Since people are already suing over it and losing, I don't see why this would ever be an issue.

It has been established very firmly that churches are allowed to discriminate about certain things based on faith alone, so I don't understand how a change to the law of the legal and secular definition of marriage would suddenly change how religious organizations were allowed to operate.

^-.-^

[PepperElf]

"discriminate" ? How so?

I mean in today's culture not say back in the 60s.

[Andara Bledin]

Current legislation allows church organizations to choose not to provide sectarian services to those who are not part of their religious sect. And the state stays out of it.

In fact, the state stays out of it so much, and people have accepted this status quo so fully, that I'm having difficulty even finding any references to lawsuits against churches who wouldn't perform sectarian services. If you can provide links to any of these, I would appreciate it.

^-.-^

[Greenday]

Even if gay marriage was legalized, the First Amendment would continue to allow churches to discriminate at free will and it would be totally legal. The law would affect legal marriages, not religious ceremonies.

[Hyena Dandy]

They can't win. If they don't win, there is no precedent. That is not a precedent for the government to tell you what to do if the suit gets laughed out. Only if the suit succeeds can it be considered a precedent.