Bert and Ernie agenda

[Andara Bledin]

There's not a lot to remember in the cause of human rights.

Don't trample or allow others to trample the rights of other people.

Now, what groups have what rights is part of a larger issue, but within context of this thread, it's actually pretty black and white. There is no reason other than bigotry to prevent two people of the same expressed gender to enter into a marriage contract.

^-.-^

[PepperElf]

Similarly with causes - there are thousands of them. I can't care about everything going. I'm suffering from compassion fatigue. Just because I'm not an activist for one person's particular preference doesn't mean to say I hate them and their works. There's only so much fuck I can give.

this is probably more where i'm at. which is what others are failing to grasp i suspect.

they may feel their cause is "the right one" but it's not the only one. I have other causes that i've chosen to give my support to. if it bothers you that your own personal cause isn't on my list... that's really not MY problem. Even if it offends you.

[Nyoibo]

this is probably more where i'm at. which is what others are failing to grasp i suspect.

they may feel their cause is "the right one" but it's not the only one. I have other causes that i've chosen to give my support to. if it bothers you that your own personal cause isn't on my list... that's really not MY problem. Even if it offends you.

I think that most people wouldn't have a problem if it was "I don't give a fuck" but you said you oppose it, not that you don't give a fuck and that your reason for opposing it is spurious.

[PepperElf]

I think that most people wouldn't have a problem if it was "I don't give a fuck" but you said you oppose it, not that you don't give a fuck and that your reason for opposing it is spurious.

i can be both.
and if it offends others... let them be offended.

really i have to remind myself, and i should have reminded myself earlier... if someone else is offended that i disagree with their viewpoint, don't support what they do - or what they want me to, or if they disagree with my reasons.... it's not MY problem.

[Hyena Dandy]

Well, its not your problem. Its not hurting you. Its my problem because its hurting me. ANd as it is my problem, its my duty to try to convince you. Otherwise I would be a pretty poor activist, wouldn't I?

[Gravekeeper]

Now, what groups have what rights is part of a larger issue, but within context of this thread, it's actually pretty black and white. There is no reason other than bigotry to prevent two people of the same expressed gender to enter into a marriage contract.

^ That right there.

We're talking about a human rights issue, not a pet cause. You don't have to wave a flag or donate money or anything to that affect. But saying you don't give a rats ass reflects pretty poorly.

I didn't have to march or wave or a flag or anything during the gay marriage debate up here in Canada that led to it being legalized. I just went "Yeah, you're right, that's fair." and agreed.

[Sleepwalker]

*snippety snip snip*
I suspect the majority of those fine, upstanding citizens concerned about so much that they came up with the above quotables didn't live in an environment with so many causes to support.

Rapscallion

And it is easier to say, I don't care about the polar bears than to agree that polar bears shouldn't be going extinct? Or, when someone mentions polar bears, it is easier to go off on a whinge about how people keep asking you to care about things, rather than just, y'know, saying 'yes, that sucks'. Cry me a river.

Or, my personal favourite, 'starving two year old orphan girls with no legs are being raped whilst being burned alive, how dare you ask me to care about some guy being fired for getting married!' The amount of energy defending assholery would be better spent not being an asshole. And that is the limit of what is being asked of you. Don't be an asshole, and vote for some non assholes every couple years.

Voting once every one or two years is a hell of a lot less work than the 'fine upstanding citizens' did during the holocaust, enlightenment, and democratic resurgence. I think you can manage.

[Gravekeeper]

The amount of energy defending assholery would be better spent not being an asshole.

That practically sums up every social and political problem in western civilization at the moment. >.>

[Rapscallion]

I don't see how it's assholery to simply not care about someone's pet peeve. It's near the knuckle to condemn someone as the enemy if you don't become an activist.

I'll generally go so far as to stay out of the way of those doing good, maybe with a nod to the effect that the person in question is doing good things, but there's no way I'm being dragged into their army on pain of ostracism.

On occasion I'll sign a petition, but I'm very leery of those after I started with Avaaz a while back. Woman being stoned in some middle eastern shithole? Signed up for that and signed the petition. Stop eating whales? Yup - all up for that.

Stop this right-wing media tycoon from taking over a media business and making it right-wing in a different country? Hang on a second - freedom of speech and being asked to interfere in another country's politics? I'm not really right-wing, but that went beyond the lines of decency as far as I was concerned.

I'm very careful about what I sign these days. Slight tangent, but that's another group demanding support all the time.

Rapscallion

[Andara Bledin]

I cannot fathom how a human rights issue can be degraded down to "someone's pet peeve."

^-.-^

[siead_lietrathua]

wow. was weird watching this go from puppets are asexual to pepperelf being the devil O_O lol.

tossing in a few pennies on this, pepperelf feel free to slap me if im wrong on some assumptions here.
what i've interpreted the last pages of posts is:
pepperelf's religion of choice is one that chooses not to be involved in the marrying of homosexual couples on grounds that it violates their church's doctrine.
pepperelf is worried that eventually (maybe not immediately, but say 10, 20 + years down the road) allowing civil marriage of homosexual couples may eventually lead to the church of her religion of choice being forced to preform ceremonies against their doctrine for fear of being sued.
So she has decided that she is not going actively support gay marriage, on the basis that it goes against her doctrine of faith.

isn't forcing her to vote pro-gay-marriage against her beliefs as according to her faith just as wrong as forcing two gay people to not wed as it does not violate their faith of choice?

while on a personal basis, i believe that homosexuals have every right to marry and do what they will with their lives, i can also respect the fact that there are people that cannot support it based on the word of their deity.

[Gravekeeper]

I cannot fathom how a human rights issue can be degraded down to "someone's pet peeve."

^-.-^

Saved me saying it. ;p

isn't forcing her to vote pro-gay-marriage against her beliefs as according to her faith just as wrong as forcing two gay people to not wed as it does not violate their faith of choice?

Again, human rights issue. She can vote with her beliefs all she wants, that doesn't mean they are correct. Again, this is not stupid little pet cause or some such. Its a human rights issue. So all of these comparisions are silly. Try framing your questin with another human rights issue and see whether you still agree with it. Like "Isn't forcing her to vote pro-women aren't property against her beliefs-".

[Nyoibo]

isn't forcing her to vote pro-gay-marriage against her beliefs as according to her faith just as wrong as forcing two gay people to not wed as it does not violate their faith of choice?

What annoys me most about this is the double standard and hypocrisy (Not of you or your post, but of this concept in general).

The whole arguement of "It might force my faith to do something later on" violating the separation of church and state, when said same faith is already imposing itself and beliefs on others in violation of the separation of church and state.

[Rapscallion]

I cannot fathom how a human rights issue can be degraded down to "someone's pet peeve."

^-.-^

Then you lack imagination.

I suspect a better term I could have used would have been 'pet cause'.

So, the rest of my post?

Rapscallion

[Andara Bledin]

The whole arguement of "It might force my faith to do something later on" violating the separation of church and state, when said same faith is already imposing itself and beliefs on others in violation of the separation of church and state.

Thanks. For some reason I couldn't manage to find a way to say this that wasn't hopelessly muddled.

I like how the argument is that somebody in some distant future might someday do something that inconveniences someone, so that makes it ok to go ahead and actively oppress someone right now.

^-.-^