I know people who don't want gay marriage to be legal

And, in every case, I think those people are totally misguided about that.

However, in the case of some of them, I still respect their opinions on other issues and have a good, civil relationship with them.

Just sayin'.

There in lies the difference.

conference on religion and ethics. He does not need to be shut out, but having him in such a prominent position in the inaugural is short-sighted and divisive.

...I would give them a national platform.

Likewise, I really, really doubt that Rick Warren's prayer will mention that issue.

for Prop. H8, guess what, all his "other issues" mean exactly jack shit compared to that.

The president is giving a bigot a platform, and legitimacy.

The issues with him go far beyond homophobia. He's also very mysogynistic and anti-semitic.

Gotcha!

There are some people I tend to think of as otherwise good (even exemplary) people in other ways -- but with whom I happen to disagree on that one issue.

I'm sorry, but I just don't think that everyone who doesn't favor gay marriage is automatically in the "David Duke or Zell Miller" category.

:shrug:

The world is not as black and white. In your world there are:

A) The people who agree with you 100% on all issues. And;

B) The "evil ones."

In my world, there are a lot more shades of grey.

Thanks.

... who said that everyone who fails to support gay marriage is in the same category as David Duke. You did.

Here is what I told another poster:

Someone who, in 2008, still favors segregation is in a far, far different category than someone who favored it in, say, 1958. In 1958, segregation was the accepted norm in many places -- a fact of life. People who would never favor segregation now might have supported it in the context of 1958 America.

Gay marriage is a relatively new idea. It was hardily mentioned even 10 years ago. In many ways, this is the 1958 of the gay marriage movement. I don't expect everyone to be in favor of gay marriage right now. But, in 50 years, I think only the most bigoted, gay-hating assholes will be opposed to it.

even if they are wrong on one issue.

So I'm asking you to identify an exemplary person who is a segregationist.

Do you? I think anyone who is a segregationist in 2008 probably has lots of "issues."

1960's were exemplary people?

I never said that being opposed togay marriage makes one examplary. I merely said that there are people I know who oppose gay marriage who are otherwise exemplary people.

In 1958, I suppose lots of otherwise good people were opposed to open housing laws. Most of those who are still alive now have no doubt changed their minds about that.

this.

I'm not twisting your words.

I believe Obama would use that as an opportunity to show him to be an ass.

I don't associate with racists, why the fuck should I give an exception for homophobes?

If someone is not ready to favor gay marriage, that alone makes that person unworthy of any association whatsoever?

who's simply "not ready to favor" gay marriage.

I don't associate with homophobes, the same as I don't associate with racists, sexists, etc. Hell, I've lost friends over this type of shit, I kicked a guy out of my car, over 20 miles from his house, when I found out he was a racist asshole. Thought he was a good guy, but he just had to say the "N" word in front of me, and I told him to get his fucking ass out of my car. Was I wrong then? HELL FUCKING NO! And I'm not wrong now, I'd do the same thing to someone who said the "F" word in front of me or "wasn't ready" to support gay marriage. I have no time to waste on these fucking bigots, and I really don't want them in my life.

... Anyone not in favor of gay marriage is a homophobe?

I am thinking now about a relative of mine. She is a really, really good person. She has adopted several children from foster care and raised them in a good home. When a family in her church lost their home, she took them in (all 5 of them) for more than a year till they got back on their feet. This woman sets a great example of charity and goodwill toward everyone she meets. She'd never turn away a needy person, gay, straight, black, white, whatever. She also has always been very good to me and my family.

But I also know that she does not want gay marriage to be legalized. Should I cut her out of my life based on that? I think not.

I'm certain there were segregationists who were charitable and kind to blacks.

They just didn't believe in equality for them.

But I also don't think she is a terrible, evil bigot who should be shunned.

separate facilities?

... that my 80-year-old great aunt is as bad as the Nazis?

C'mon now.

segregation who weren't and aren't Nazis.

Get a grip.

But as long as you'd say the same good thing about someone who felt blacks should ride only on the back of the bus, and embrace your friendship with them, ten at least you're consistent.

Someone who, in 2008, still favors segregation is in a far, far different category than someone who favored it in, say, 1958. In 1958, segregation was the accepted norm in many places -- a fact of life. People who would never favor segregation now might have supported it in the context of 1958 America.

Gay marriage is a relatively new idea. It was hardily mentioned even 10 years ago. In many ways, this is the 1958 of the gay marriage movement. I don't expect everyone to be in favor of gay marriage right now. But, in 50 years, I think only the most bigoted, gay-hating assholes will be opposed to it.

Apparently it's just SOME types of equality.

"There are some people I tend to think of as otherwise good (even exemplary) people in other ways -- but with whom I happen to disagree on that one issue."

"There are some people I tend to think of as otherwise good (even exemplary) people in other ways -- but with whom I happen to disagree on that one issue."

Can you identify anyone from now or any time in the civil rights era who was an exemplary person with whom you would disagree about segregation?

And remember: We're talking about 2008 and gay marriage.

people you were so close to who were good to their maids but just didn't believe in segregation.

I wonder if you could do that, looking back, how you'd feel about describing them as exemplary.

... I am sure there were otherwise good people who would not have supported open-housing laws. And I am sure that 99% of them would not feel that way now. Likewise, I expect most people to "come around" to my view on gay marriage over time.

In 50 years, I don't think I'll say that people who took longer than me to support gay marriage are still bad people -- or were bad people back in 2008. I will think of them as formerly misguided people who saw the light.

Now, people who STILL oppose gay marriage in 50 years... that'll be different.

Maybe I should not have used the word "exemplary." You seem to be stuck on that. It might have been too strong of a word.

I appreciate that people move along at different rates, but I hardly see the point of praising people who hold onto a bigoted view for whatever reason.

Personally, I'd be ashamed of it.

...for holding bigoted views. I merely said that otherwise good people disagree with me about gay marriage. I don't think being opposed to gay marriage -- now, in 2008 -- automatically makes someone a bad person.

Does it change the fact that they are bigots?

If someone I know does not favor gay marriage, should I punch that person in the face every time we meet? What about people who support civil unions? Just a slap?

don't choose to associate with them, and tell them why you refuse to associate with them. If they are really as good as you say, maybe that will have an impact and force them to think about why you think this issue is so important you would no longer be their friend. If they aren't as good, well, its no great loss to you.

Sorry.

and being dogmatic to those should be lauded, not diminished.

And some day, you'll have the opportunity to edit your history and say you never would have tolerated such a thing.

I think in 50 years (if I live that long) I'll be able to say that I was for gay marriage at a time when most people were not for it. I'll be able to say that I advocated for it and voted for candidates who favored it.

were totally against it!".

:-)

that there were lots of otherwise fine people who were opposed to it.

People will say: "Really? How could that be? Only real assholes are opposed to gay marriage."

I will respond: "You had to be there at the time. It really was a controversial idea in 2008. We've made a lot of progress, kids. Never forget how far we have come!"

I understand.

...it was socially acceptable to be in favor of slavery. By that standard, even the hardcore segregationists would have been progressive if dropped back in time. Progress is never instant.

Just because a societal change seems obviously justified to you and me, you cannot expect everyone to warm up to the idea right away. So, I stand by my opinion: Opposing gay marriage does not, all by itself, put a person in the "pond scum" category.

Since you can disagree with an exemplary person on civil rights, you ought to be able to name a few.

We did not talk about civil rights in Kindergarten. It was mostly finger-painting.

would you associate with them?

Honestly I don't completely shun people who are against gay marriage or are somewhat racist. I do have little respect for them, though.

They don't support gay marriage, but they're nice people who still treat gay people with respect and can even be friends with them. To paint them all as evil bigots is completely wrong.

Also, I have a number of friends whose parents are immigrants from countries where the whole gay issue wasn't accepted or even mentioned. When they find themselves in a completely new country with this raging debate going on, they're not sure about it. Some of them don't feel entirely comfortable with gay marriage, but I have no doubt that they're genuinely nice people.

Damn, this is as bad as that fucking bigot who quit her restaurant job in California over her Prop. 8 donation.

They don't discuss this issue and it has no effect on their friendship at all. Maybe there are actually people out there who don't live and die by politics, and care about other things in friends.

they don't support equal rights for other races.

:eyes:

But they have a different view on marriage and may not feel comfortable about it. I don't think that makes them bad people.

And civil unions are not equal to marriage.

They're not advocating separate facilities for gay people.

How is it not?

It's a second class marriage.

They're just not ready to give up the term "marriage", which is stupid but not an entirely evil idea.

NJ's commission studied it and confirmed "civil unions" are unfair to same sex couples and their kids BECAUSE it's a separate category and therefore not treated as equal.

having their own drinking fountains.

That didn't make them bad people, did it?

Most of them work with gay people and go to school with them, and friends with gay people. I guess some people can put politics aside..

If you think that's not a separate accommodation you're fooling yourself.

You are totally right.

They are no different from the people you know on a moral level.

friends are?

Most people I know who are opposed to gay marriage have no problem with civil unions and giving them all the benefits like a domestic partnership. Even Bush and McCain are kind of OK with civil unions.

On the other hand, I do have relatives who hold some stereotypical views of minorities. But I would never disown them for it.

And, in every case, I think those people are totally misguided about that.

However, in the case of some of them, I still respect their opinions on other issues and have a good, civil relationship with them....

I feel the say way about the people I know.

I consider such people moral reprobates.

Oh, and throw feces at them. Yep, gotta have the feces.

how decent they are.

They don't have the right to make other people believe such BS however. :-)

Just sayin'.

Sorry, but this whole "If you don't favor gay marriage you are the same as a segregationist" argument does not hold up.

Let me cut and paste this one more time:

Someone who, in 2008, still favors segregation is in a far, far different category than someone who favored it in, say, 1958. In 1958, segregation was the accepted norm in many places -- a fact of life. People who would never favor segregation now might have supported it in the context of 1958 America.

Gay marriage is a relatively new idea. It was hardily mentioned even 10 years ago. In many ways, this is the 1958 of the gay marriage movement. I don't expect everyone to be in favor of gay marriage right now. But, in 50 years, I think only the most bigoted, gay-hating assholes will be opposed to it.

for new ideas or for civil rights.

And yes, the argument holds up just fine. There were black editors urging Martin to hold off just as here there are so called liberals telling our gay members to shut up. It's a match.

the gay rights movement doesn't have California yet.

Shameful.

I am merely working on the basis of fact. A lot of people do not support gay marriage. That is a fact. And that, by itself, does not make them bad people. Most of them can and will be persuaded to come around.

Pretty fucked up, IMO.

... to all those who oppose gay marriage. Hence, I never said "some bigots are exemplary people."

:-)

But in many cases, they don't think they do. Many people HONESTLY think that allowing civil unions is "the same thing."

And, please not this: Saying that that people are "otherwise good (even exemplary) people in other ways" is not the same as calling them "good (even exemplary) people in ALL ways, including their views about gays."

I clearly qualified that. People can be totally wrong about one thing and right about other things. It happens.

in some other ways.

But I don't think anything else can compensate enough for bigotry to identify someone as good, non bigoted or exemplary.

Gay marriage is a new idea. It is scary for a lot of people who will, eventually come around largely because they are NOT bigots at heart.

A lot of people just plain don't think it's necessary -- either because they think civil unions are the same thing or they think contract law can be used to replicate marriage for gays. Such people are not necessarily motivated by "homophobia." Many of them have no problem at all with homosexuality. Some of them ARE gay.

Hence, it is over the top to assume that failure to endorse gay marriage = bigotry in all cases.

can excuse bigotry any way you like, but it's just an excuse.

And you are entitled to it.

It's like saying I have a friend who is black. Usually the next statement after that is flame inducing.


I have family who don't want gay marriage. I have friends who don't believe in the entire idea of anything besides heterosexuality.

That said, I haven't gotten rid of my relationships. It is the same thing I read here about people handling loved ones who found a mental block existed when considering voting for a nonWhite male. I felt pretty good because people were arguing with their loved ones about race being the predominant qualifying factor for U.S. President.


I think the transition is the same or similar for the homophobic fear loved ones have about gays being married. Some strategies work where I've called out my loved ones for using disparaging language and refuse to allow anyone to use that kind of talk without rebutting it. Other interactions have to be a great deal more subtle than that. Why can't we who support Obama and believe gays are God's design for this world (it never was a mistake or abnormality) work on our loved ones day by day conversation by conversation to increase everyone's tolerance?

Rick Warren does not spell a leap forward for a high level of tolerance. What he does represent to me is the loved ones I have who I know will be more inclusive if they have greater exposure and experience. The religious conviction Rick Warren has reminds me of people who hounded MLK Jr. for agitating for equal rights when it upset societal norms. MLK Jr. was worried about symbolic victories as he approached serious policy considerations in DC. He worked to create the ground swell that would force administrations to listen.

I think I'd understand this outrage better if this Rick Warren symbol was attached to a Don't Ask Don't Tell policy. Where is the nexus?

...very strongly that homosexuality is a sin and that gays should be "turned from the gay lifestyle." Yet, those same people will (mostly) insist that gays should be treated with "Christian love" -- that Christians should not shun them or mistreat them in any way.

I kind of have the flip-side of that opinion when it comes to evangelicals. I think they are very misguided about gays. I also think their idea of "Christian love" can be condescending and self-righteous, even if they don't mean it to be. I think they should be shown that their attitude is backward, bigoted and just plain wrong. In the meantime, I do not plan to shun them or mistreat them in any way.

Rick Warren does not spell a leap forward for a high level of tolerance. What he does represent to me is the loved ones I have who I know will be more inclusive if they have greater exposure and experience.

And because you are not a demagogue or a zealot (and neither are the vast majority of people on this planet) you can see look at the ugly things your loved ones may do and still continue to see the good in them.

Your bringing up MLK is an excellent example. Just imagine how much progress he would have made if he only spoke to and included people who thought and felt just like him? King talked to EVERYBODY who would listen. And we all know the majority of times, those in favor of segregation did not listen, but he talked anyway. I often think he is reviled by some to this day because his actions not only changed the way blacks were treated, but also changed the very SOCIAL FIBER of our country and pulled folks out of their comfort bubbles and forced them to see that segregation was wrong when that was truly the last thing they wanted to acknowledge.

What many of the people throwing poo at everyone else on this board fail to understand is that it is not impossible to be in favor of marriage equality and not be mortally wounded by Rick Warren's role at the inauguration. Just as it is not impossible to have people in your life who you love dearly who have ideals that are COMPLETELY different from your own.

Your "where is the nexus?" question is excellent imo.

When politicians that people already have a niggling suspicion that they are racist/sexist/homophobic etc. sit down or have public interaction with known racists/sexists/homophobes, people feel that politician is giving a non-too subtle "I'm with you" nod to that person and his ideals.

And I think that's truly why this Obama/Warren issue makes NO SENSE to me. Obama has said he and Warren disagree on gay marriage. WARREN has said that he and Obama disagree on this issue. Obama is not even in office yet and already there is plenty of buzz about two OPENLY gay Americans that will be appointed to high profile positions in his administration. Gay groups have graded him well on the issue of gay rights.

So WHAT is the problem?? Do people genuinely feel that Obama is a homophobe?? Do people feel that Warren will somehow influence Obama and sway him away from gay rights?? I don't understand what is the real fear, the true worry behind all of this screaming and yelling.