Grassroots Mormon anti-gay campaign

Quahom1 said:
That is just it Bob, I have no problem with you personally raising any children. I'm not personally agreived by same sex couples bringing kids to adulthood, at all.
Click to expand...
You are just opposed to any legal security for them.
Quahom1 said:
However, that said...in order to get laws changed, one must see hearts changed first. It can't be the other way around, or else there is nothing but animosity, and begrudgement, towards the party the law change favors.
Click to expand...
On the contrary: the law must be made fair first, and then the animosity goes away. Waiting for the majority to grudgingly allow a minority equality of rights is useless; it has never worked that way, nor should it be expected to.
 
bob x said:
You are just opposed to any legal security for them.
Click to expand...
Not at all sir. What I want is insure that what you wish to teach your children is not imposed upon mine. Nor do I want what I teach my children to be imposed upon yours.

Simple enough request, but so hard for some to accept.


On the contrary: the law must be made fair first, and then the animosity goes away. Waiting for the majority to grudgingly allow a minority equality of rights is useless; it has never worked that way, nor should it be expected to.
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
We disagree. Why would the majority allow a minority special rights to begin with? Unless it supported the majority in the long run...(cause and effect).

Offer something the majority can't turn down, and gain status in a way that favors the majority's thinking of the minority. That is the way of history for mankind.

One can't "demand" status at par with the established society, just because they are "different". Insufficient.

Society is based on a "worthy" status. What do we provide society that makes us "worthy" of a position that is normally denied others?

You can't "demand" anything, from society. You must "earn" it.

Don't take it from me, just look at society at large.
 
Paladin said:
I sincerely hope this happens, and if it happens anywhere it can happen within the walls of this site, people here though argumentative at times are way more thoughtful and emotionally mature than most I meet in my day to day life.

So far I see that we have conflict on a strategic vs tactical view of the issue. Bob of course is more concerned with the tactical level, the level at which people actually live, and Q is going for the strategic. One is at a mature "blue" level while the other is communicating from a "green" meme (using a Spiral Dynamics model)

Back in the days when Colorado was dealing with amendment 2 I fought tooth and nail to get people to understand what they were actually doing to an entire class of people who really had done no wrong other than being gay. Since then I have grown increasingly exhausted and disgusted with the obvious lack of empathy and reason with which opponents approach gay issues.
Click to expand...
I tried, but it isn't working.
 
Salty,

We discussed,

"Frank and honest discussions ... need to happen as long as each side admits that the other side is entitiled to have their opinion."

"I think you're missing the point."

--> No, that is the point. Until we can state and 'agree' on what the two points of view actually consist of, true discussion on the topic is impossible. (I think your completions and my completions of the following sentences may be quite different.) Complete these sentences:

The homosexual point of view is...

The fundamentalist point of view is...
 
bob x said:
EQUAL rights are not SPECIAL. We want the same as everyone else, no more, no less.

Yes we can. And we will have it.
Click to expand...
A 20 year old goes to the bar and "demands" an alcoholic drink, and bar tender says "No". The Young adult states that it is his "right" to have that drink. And the Bar tender says "The law states you do not have that right. Society states you are not qualified to have that right. The bar tender further states "If you want that right, you must "convince" society that you should have that right, that you deserve that right, and the law will then change to grant you that right. But until such happens, you can not have an alcoholic drink".

So how does the 20 year old proceed? By demanding further? Getting angrier? Calling society names? Breaking the law?

Or, showing that most 20 year olds are mature and ready and deserving, by providing statistics that validate the maturity of most 20 year olds, by petitioning for signatures that society does agree that 20 year olds should be able to drink, because they are responsible and not a potential detriment to the rest of society...

It's an analogy Bob, but the base message is the same. Demanding something will get one nothing. Earning the right is what gets one the right.

We are born with "certain" unalienable rights. Among them are Life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.

We do not have the right to drive a car, nor the right to get married to anyone we choose, nor the right to drink alcohol, nor the right to get a loan to buy property or a home. These are priviliges, based on qualifications, set by society.

Our "right" is the right to pursuit of happiness...but within that pursuit, are limitations or qualifications that must be met, for certain priviliges society grants us.

"Ask me, and I will consider...demand from me, and I will refuse".
 
A black man goes to the bar and "demands" an alcoholic drink, and bar tender says "No". The black adult states that it is his "right" to have that drink. And the Bar tender says "The law states you do not have that right. Society states you are not qualified to have that right. The bar tender further states "If you want that right, you must "convince" society that you should have that right, that you deserve that right, and the law will then change to grant you that right. But until such happens, you can not have an alcoholic drink".

So how does the black proceed? By demanding further? Getting angrier? Calling society names? Breaking the law?


The Constitution IS the highest law of the land, and the a-holes in society who call it "law" to deny equality to others are simply wrong about the law. Yes, indeed, the way to force the change is to demand equality, as a right, because it is.
Quahom1 said:
We do not have the right to drive a car, nor the right to get married to anyone we choose...
Click to expand...
Here you are directly contradicting the Supreme Court of the United States, which has said it is not only a right, but a "fundamental" right, one that can only be infringed upon for the most compelling of reasons. And their opinion about what the law is, by definition, is correct; your opinion to the contrary doesn't matter. Now, I know that there are several Justices on that court who would like to deny us the right to marry, but they will have to show "compelling" reasons for that (reasons as strong as those which support bans on incestuous or pedophiliac marriages), and I don't think they can. No-one on your side has ever come up with anything that amounts to more than "Ewww, we don't like you."
 
Last edited by a moderator:
bob_x said:
No-one on your side has ever come up with anything that amounts to more than "Ewww, we don't like you."
Click to expand...
as neat a summing-up as ever i've seen. the logical response for me has to be "in which case, we must be getting something wrong in our interpretation of the Divine Will - let's go back and take another look at it. and in the mean time, let's all try to treat each other as made in the Divine Image, shall we?"

b'shalom

bananabrain
 
bob x said:
The Constitution IS the highest law of the land, and the a-holes in society who call it "law" to deny equality to others are simply wrong about the law. Yes, indeed, the way to force the change is to demand equality, as a right, because it is.

Here you are directly contradicting the Supreme Court of the United States, which has said it is not only a right, but a "fundamental" right, one that can only be infringed upon for the most compelling of reasons. And their opinion about what the law is, by definition, is correct; your opinion to the contrary doesn't matter. Now, I know that there are several Justices on that court who would like to deny us the right to marry, but they will have to show "compelling" reasons for that (reasons as strong as those which support bans on incestuous or pedophiliac marriages), and I don't think they can. No-one on your side has ever come up with anything that amounts to more than "Ewww, we don't like you."
Click to expand...
You deliberately changed the analogy...and QUOTED ME AS STATING IT!!! THAT WAS A CHEAP SHOT!!! Undermined, and crass.
 
Quahom1 said:
You deliberately changed the analogy...and QUOTED ME AS STATING IT!!! THAT WAS A CHEAP SHOT!!! Undermined, and crass.
Click to expand...
I made the analogy more appropriate and clearly indicated where I was making the edits.

Look, there might have been a time when I believed in trying to change people's hearts. But the Bush years have made it clear that there is no such thing as changing the good Christians' hearts: they don't have any. And as for "moderate" Christians like yourself who think the "right" of the heartless to do me evil is more important than my right to have what you take for granted: I really don't care any more whether you change your mind or not. When you talk about how you'll offended if you're not consulted, I am reminded of some dialogue from Pride and Prejudice:
Lady Catherine de Burgh: I am not accustomed to being thus contradicted!
Elizabeth Bennett: That will make Your Ladyship's situation at present more pitiable, but it can have no effect on me.
 
bob x said:
I made the analogy more appropriate and clearly indicated where I was making the edits.

Look, there might have been a time when I believed in trying to change people's hearts. But the Bush years have made it clear that there is no such thing as changing the good Christians' hearts: they don't have any. And as for "moderate" Christians like yourself who think the "right" of the heartless to do me evil is more important than my right to have what you take for granted: I really don't care any more whether you change your mind or not. When you talk about how you'll offended if you're not consulted, I am reminded of some dialogue from Pride and Prejudice:
Lady Catherine de Burgh: I am not accustomed to being thus contradicted!
Elizabeth Bennett: That will make Your Ladyship's situation at present more pitiable, but it can have no effect on me.
Click to expand...
I had to think about it. I see where you are coming from Bob.

I wish I was the better man. But sometimes I'm not. I can get circular in my logic, and that is a waste of everyone's time.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top