Hello everybody

[kentonio]

Your statement showed that you don't seek to understand them, but instead just to attack them.

JM

Whereas you are apparently quite happy to maintain the status quo of discrimination to ensure no bigots feelings get hurt. You really don't think that gays might feel a bit more 'attacked' on this issue?

[Ben Kenobi]

Well, let's see if Jon Miller is right. Let's see how well the liberals here understand conservatives.

http://www.yourmorals.org/

http://hotair.com/archives/2012/04/13/confirmed-conservatives-understand-liberal-positions-better-than-liberals-understand-conservative-positions/

As long as he is allowed to keep what he has earned, the conservative thinks he has been treated fairly — even if others have more than he has. The liberal has a completely different definition of fairness. Liberals seem to think we have a right to the same fruits no matter what our labor.

[kentonio]

That article and quote would be by the same Jonathan Haidt who previously received the Templeton prize, correct? The same Haidt who suggested that atheists 'pollute the scientific study of religion? The same Haidt who said that there was no reason for people not to throw a party over Bin Ladens execution?

I just want to make sure we're talking about the same Jonathan Haidt here.

[Jon Miller]

Whereas you are apparently quite happy to maintain the status quo of discrimination to ensure no bigots feelings get hurt. You really don't think that gays might feel a bit more 'attacked' on this issue?

I think that the world realizing that saying 'promiscuous ***' was wrong is a lot more important than legalizing gay marriage. Gay rights focused on it 30+ years ago and has only focused on gay marriage in the last 10-20 years.

Likewise, saying 'bigot bigot bigot' to people who are not bigots but that you just do not understand (because they have a different perspective than you do) is worse than being against gay marriage (just like saying 'promiscuous ***' is).

JM

[kentonio]

I think that the world realizing that saying 'promiscuous ***' was wrong is a lot more important than legalizing gay marriage. Gay rights focused on it 30+ years ago and has only focused on gay marriage in the last 10-20 years.

Only 10-20 years? and they're already complaining? Damn impatient gay folks..

Likewise, saying 'bigot bigot bigot' to people who are not bigots but that you just do not understand (because they have a different perspective than you do) is worse than being against gay marriage (just like saying 'promiscuous ***' is).

If someone is incapable of understanding that their position is bigoted after 10-20 years, then they are either obtuse or a bigot. If they are genuinely not bigoted people but merely chose not to change their position, they they deserve no more consideration than a bigot does.

It's so easy for people like you to calmly talk about how unimportant a right like marriage is, when you're not actually affected by the issue. You and I both get to have partnerships recognized and protected by law, yet apparently its fine for other people to not receive the same? How can you call yourself pro gay marriage and yet be happy to relegate its important below the rights of its opponents to not be made to feel bad for opposing it?

[Jon Miller]

Well, let's see if Jon Miller is right. Let's see how well the liberals here understand conservatives.

http://www.yourmorals.org/

http://hotair.com/archives/2012/04/1...ive-positions/

I think this is a slightly different mindset, but yes... it is also one associated with 'conservatives'. (I also don't think it is presented the best way)

I will note that if you think about the laborer story, you can see which one God implements (which might not be 'fair'):
For the kingdom of heaven of heaven is like a landowner who went out early in the morning to hire workers for his vineyard. 2 And after agreeing with the workers for the standard wage, he sent them into his vineyard. 3 When it was about nine o’clock in the morning, he went out again and saw others standing around in the market place without work. 4 And he said to them, “You go into the vineyard too and I will give you whatever is right.” 5 So they went. When he went out again about noon and three o’clock that afternoon, he did the same thing. 6 And about five o’clock that afternoon he went out and found others standing around, and he said to them, “Why are you standing here all day without work?” 7 They said to him, “Because no one has hired us.” He said to them, “You go and work in the vineyard too.”

8 When it was evening, the owner of the vineyard said to his manager, “Call the workers and give the pay starting with the last hired until the first.” 9 When those hired about five o’clock came, each received a full day’s pay. 10 And when those hired first came, they though they would receive more. But each one also received the standard wage. 11 When they received it, they began to complain against the landowner, 12 saying, “These last fellows worked one hour, and you have made them equal to us who bore the hardship and burning heat of the day.

13 And the landowner replied to one of them, “Friend, I am not treating you unfairly. Didn’t you agree with me to work for the standard wage? 14 Take what is yours and go. I want to give this last man the same as I gave to you. 15 Am I not permitted to do what I want with what belongs to me? Or are you envious because I am generous? 16 So the last will be first, and the first will be last.”


Also please note that the reason that some of the 'liberals' support the policies that they do is that they think that the laborers are being unfairly exploited by the wealthy. And so is not being given what he has earned (and has no other options to get a job to get what he/she is earned). I think this happens in the US, but even to a greater degree in Thialand/etc.

JM

[Jon Miller]

If someone is incapable of understanding that their position is bigoted after 10-20 years, then they are either obtuse or a bigot. If they are genuinely not bigoted people but merely chose not to change their position, they they deserve no more consideration than a bigot does.

It's so easy for people like you to calmly talk about how unimportant a right like marriage is, when you're not actually affected by the issue. You and I both get to have partnerships recognized and protected by law, yet apparently its fine for other people to not receive the same? How can you call yourself pro gay marriage and yet be happy to relegate its important below the rights of its opponents to not be made to feel bad for opposing it?

When your argument is personal attacks ('bigot' or 'stupid') or an argument that they don't buy, why do you expect them to change?

If Zevico's arguments had been given to more people I think that there would be less conservatively minded people against gay marriage.

And yes, 10-20 years for social opinions to change is huge.

Relationships with race, which people like to compare relationships with homosexuality too, still has a lot of change in social opinions to go... and it has been over 50 years.

JM

[Jon Miller]

I think that the only reason why many of the people on this thread are on the 'good side' with me instead of the 'bad side' with BK is an accident of genetics, not via superior human growth or reasoning capability.

JM

[Ming]

I'm still trying to figure out what "we don't understand"

Ummm... they are conservative... they don't like change... they have strong religious beliefs and think that two men together is a sin and that they are damned to hell forever...

I understand how they think change should come slowly... but at the end of the day... They don't think people should have equal freedoms based simply on sexual orientation...
That is the change they don't want. And frankly, that's discrimination, plain and simple.

Just how much longer should people being discriminated against have to wait because some other people don't like change. The more seriously harmed party here is the one that is being discriminated against. Even you have stated that they have been waiting for the same basic rights that the conservatives have for 10 to 20 years (some might argue that it's been a lot longer than that) How much longer do they need to wait simply because some conservatives don't like change?

I think we all understand perfectly what's going on here... It's really very simple... it's called discrimination.... LOOK IT UP!

[notyoueither]

I didn't say that conservatives keep things the same no matter what.

I said that the conservative mind values 'keeping things the same' as so needs a good reason for change.

JM

I am saying that making keeping things the same the top priority is the mark of a reactionary (a small subset of conservatives).

Of course I value tradition, it is on the whole what got us here. However, I recognise that not everything that has gone before is good. In my lifetime women and minorities were struggling to gain equal rights and opportunity, domestic abuse was an overlooked and hushed up problem, and a misguided 'war on drugs' continues to enrich criminal syndicates and criminalise significant portions of the population needlessly, to name a few issues.

To my mind there is a conflict of principles. On one side there are religious groups and advocates for 'tradition' who want the definition of marriage to remain as it was when Victoria was Queen. On the other there is the need to live in dignity as equal members of society and the rights to equal protection of our laws and access to the benefits society accords stable family units for same-sex couples. Someone who places tradition above fundamental rights of minority groups is not thinking much about what is truely valuable in our traditions and is more precisely described as a reactionary.

[notyoueither]

I think that the world realizing that saying 'promiscuous ***' was wrong is a lot more important than legalizing gay marriage. Gay rights focused on it 30+ years ago and has only focused on gay marriage in the last 10-20 years.

Likewise, saying 'bigot bigot bigot' to people who are not bigots but that you just do not understand (because they have a different perspective than you do) is worse than being against gay marriage (just like saying 'promiscuous ***' is).

JM

I think this is pretty outrageous.

Being called names, wrongly, is more hurtful than a minority being denied economic and social protections?

[notyoueither]

When your argument is personal attacks ('bigot' or 'stupid') or an argument that they don't buy, why do you expect them to change?

If Zevico's arguments had been given to more people I think that there would be less conservatively minded people against gay marriage.

And yes, 10-20 years for social opinions to change is huge.

Relationships with race, which people like to compare relationships with homosexuality too, still has a lot of change in social opinions to go... and it has been over 50 years.

JM

Something like Zevico's arguments have been given on this board in many discussions of the issue.

What do you call people who ignore them and continue to insist that pre-Christian passages of the Bible should be the basis of our laws that apply to all?

By the way, legislative recognition of equal rights preceded wide-spread change of social opinions in conservative areas when it came to race relations. How long should homosexuals have to wait before the event even begins?

[Ming]

I think this is pretty outrageous.

Being called names, wrongly, is more hurtful than a minority being denied economic and social protections?

Yeah... I find that outrageous as well. I'll bet you that most gays would choose marriage over a bunch of conservatives and bigots calling them a 'promiscuous ***'

To even make that statement.... unbelievable....

[giblets]

Well, let's see if Jon Miller is right. Let's see how well the liberals here understand conservatives.

http://www.yourmorals.org/

http://hotair.com/archives/2012/04/1...ive-positions/

Where is the test on that website that is supposed to show that?

[Jon Miller]

Yeah... I find that outrageous as well. I'll bet you that most gays would choose marriage over a bunch of conservatives and bigots calling them a 'promiscuous ***'

To even make that statement.... unbelievable....

Look at history.

Look at what has caused more deaths of gay people, more teen suicides.

You are ridiculous.

JM