Saturday, August 04, 2012
Just Wondering
As we all know, if you believe in the biblical definition of marriage and agree with the traditional family, you are an anti-gay, homophobic, narrow-minded, idiotic bigot. So I'm just wondering. If you believe that those who believe in the biblical definition of marriage and agree with the traditional family are all that, are you an anti-Christian, religion-hating, narrow-minded, idiotic bigot? I'm not sure on what basis it does not go both ways. You know ... just wondering out loud, so to speak.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
8 comments:
Stan, just a comment to you to answer your question, in case it was a serious question.
We who are opposed to bigoted, prejudiced behavior (ie, denying liberties and privileges to one group that you grant to another group, based not on any rational reason, but on religious biases) are opposed to bigoted, hurtful, prejudiced behavior. That is moral and rational.
It isn't wrong or irrational to be intolerant of harmful intolerance.
Those who are strongly opposed to racist behavior are not "intolerant" or "hateful" or anti-Christian for opposing racist behavior (even if it happens amongst a Christian population).
When you "wonder out loud" about these sorts of things, it makes it appear that you just don't see the difference between rational, moral opposition to hurtful, immoral behavior and irrational, prejudiced behaviors and makes it appear that you are so blinded by your prejudices that you just can't see the difference.
This sort of public admission just makes people sadly shake their heads and dismiss you.
That is how it seems to me. I'm saying this prayerfully and hopefully for your own good, between you and me.
In Christ, Dan
Wow! Nice going, Dan. So, let me see if I understand you correctly. "Religious biases" are not classified in the category of "any rational reason". Nice!
Now, your "threshold", so to speak, is "harmful intolerance". I know of one man who said in an interview, "I favor the traditional definition of marriage" and was attacked, threatened, cursed, and in fear for his life (no, not the Chick-Fil-A story at all). No "denying liberties and privileges", no "religious bias" without reason, just a simple statement. The response was ... well, let's be honest ... hate. But that isn't classified as intolerance, anti-marriage, anti-Christian, or narrow-mindedness.
So when you respond to me as you have, it makes it appear that you don't see those responses as immoral or hateful while you do see my view (which doesn't work in any way to deny liberties) as anti-gay, homophobic, and bigoted, but the response to it as moral and rational.
This sort of public admission just makes people like me shake their heads and dismiss you. And it so well illustrates my point that I couldn't keep it just between you and me.
It never goes both ways. Which way it DOES go many times depends on where someone's reference point is; and whether it is subjective or objective. One thing seems obvious to me, a person who has a subjective reference point is much less likely to see the hypocrisy in hating someone simply because he has deemed them hateful according to what amounts to an arbitrary internal standards.
Wow! Dan T. enters the scene with all sorts of problematic notions he posits as truths:
"(ie, denying liberties and privileges to one group that you grant to another group, based not on any rational reason, but on religious biases)"
No liberties have been denied, particularly since Lawrence v Texas.
No privileges have been denied to anyone. State sanctioning and licensing of traditional marriage is granted to all who seek marriage as properly and currently defined. The state is not obliged to accept alternative definitions by those who will then insist they are denied privileges as a result.
All of this is based on rational reason, as well as religious facts (not "biases"). Dan T. denies these truths in favor of falsehoods he supports. That in itself is hateful as lying is a hateful practice when it supports sinfulness and seeks to regard dysfunction as normal.
If "tolerance" meant "allowing for the existence of the differences of opinion" rather than the current "embracing opposing views", then it wouldn't need to go only one way, would it? It would, after all, end up more reasonable than "arbitrary internal standards."
Stan, your question was...
If you believe that those who believe in the biblical definition of marriage and agree with the traditional family are all that, are you an anti-Christian, religion-hating, narrow-minded, idiotic bigot?
I responded, rationally, that being opposed to (intolerant of) intolerance is not bigotry, but reasonable. Your scenario didn't mention anything but those who believe in what they call the "biblical definition" of marriage and no violence was mentioned, only being opposed to it.
Now you bring up someone an incident of hateful behavior on a pro-marriage equity person. I am opposed to his hateful behavior just as I am opposed to your bigoted behavior. I said nothing to suggest that I am not opposed to hateful behavior.
In fact, I said the opposite.
Read my words and consider them. If God can speak through an ass in the Bible, maybe God can speak through me. It may be worth your while to listen.
Tolerance means just what the dictionary says it means. If you tolerate another person's different opinion, you don't try to legislate their opinion away. By legalizing marriage equity, we have not legislated away your freedom to marry who you wish, you still hold to it. But by legislating discrimination against gay folk, you are not being tolerant of their opinions and behaviors which cause you no harm. "Tolerance" would be "well, I disagree with that non-harmful behavior/opinion, but I'm not going to criminalize it..."
I asked that last one to be between you and I, for your own sake. You chose otherwise (is it the case that you miss me, sweetheart?). Your call on this one, I'm done.
You missed the point, I suppose. Your position is that your side is trying to promote tolerance while my side is promoting intolerance. You argue that's the case because my side is trying to "legislate their opinion away".
So, let's stop for a moment and recall the two opinions. One side says, "Marriage is the union of a man and a woman and has always been that since time began." The other side says, "Marriage is ... not that. It's a ... loving relationship, a commitment, something quite less rigorous than that narrow, time-worn definition. And we want to expand it to our application ... but not to others." Those are the two positions. The "legislation", then, that is being sought is either "Marriage has always meant this and we wish to keep it that way" or "We want to change the definition to include our position ... but not others." (I've seen very little from the "marriage equity" side, for instance, that is pushing for polygamy, polyandry, or other expansions of "marriage" -- just "gay marriage".)
Back to the question, then. My side says "We believe in the traditional definition and wish to pass legislation to keep it that way" and your side says "We believe in a broader definition (within limits) and with to pass legislation to make it that way." Both include legislation. Both would marginalize the other position.
And yet, it's only your side that is "tolerant", "open-minded", "unbiased", "all-embracing", while my side is "anti-gay", "narrow-minded", and "intolerant". You see this as rational and fair and balanced. And, apparently, you can't see that you've missed the point entirely and that you're no more "tolerant" than those whom you claim to be so "intolerant" and no less "judgmental" of those whom you are complaining are judgmental.
Cognitive dissonance strikes again. AKA suppression of the truth.
Post a Comment