Quote:
Originally Posted by foundit66
How about giving an example?
What ACTUAL INSTANCE of "anti-gay" was seen that was treated one way, where you think it should have been treated differently? Frankly, I talk about a lot of the dregs of the issue. People who want to discriminate against gays in the worst ways. People who want to MALIGN gays, and often get paid to do it.
|
I didn't say I was talking about you. I have had extended exchanges with Jake over this issue (no, I'm not going to go back and try to find those conversations, sorry), and clearly he views mere objection over this as anti-gay. IOW, in his thinking, objection over gay marriage can't EXIST without being anti-gay. Whatever that means.
Quote:
Originally Posted by foundit66
But you shouldn't take us talking about people who ACTIVELY DISCRIMINATE against gays, and just confuse that with somebody who "disagrees" but does none of the more extreme stuff as the same.
|
Frankly, I suspect there are many in your movement who can't get past the idea that disagreement of ANY kind on this IS a form of extremism; whether they would admit it or not, I don't know. That's just my opinion.
Quote:
Originally Posted by foundit66
Would you ask people to define what "anti-black" means or "anti-Jewish" means? |
Sure, why not? It seems to me that to if someone says something, it can only be helpful if they are SPECIFIC about what they MEAN. Don't you agree?
Quote:
Originally Posted by foundit66
If somebody said "I think blacks are inferior"
|
No, no, I'm not talking about cases where someone says "gays are inferior." I'm talking about cases where someone opposes gay marriage because their moralistic religious view can't allow for marriage outside of being between one man and one woman. And yet this seems to be commonly the reason for the objection.
Quote:
Originally Posted by foundit66
questions so you can quibble over the details, WHILE YOU IGNORE the discrimination that occurs against gays.
|
how many times do I have to say that I agree gays are discriminated against? I have not ignored that. I have agreed with it. You're engaging in a falsehood to say so. What do you expect here ... an 'I-agree-gays-are-discriminated-against' type statement in my signature so it will literally be said in every post? Would that appease you?
Done. But I suspect you'll still look for reasons to complain.
Quote:
Originally Posted by foundit66
Tell you what Jyoshu. When the things I see as more important (like the anti-gay discrimination) are halted, then I'll be able to get around to defining the obvious for you down to the number of decimal points that would make you happy ...
Until then, operationally, I think people who want to discriminate against gays are "anti-gay".
I think people who malign gays with lies are "anti-gay".
Does that help?
|
Sure. At least you're finally putting some qualifiers out there, even if you ARE doing the rhetorical equivilent of kicking and screaming, to boot. It's progress, at least. (Though it seems to me that specifying what people really MEAN becomes even MORE important if there are issues they want halted. Unless of course, they're trying to intentionally keep the buzz-phrases vague ...
)
My view is that a phrase like "anti-gay" speaks more to MOTIVATIONS than anything else. THAT'S how I would define it--if someone INTENDS to be against gays. So I think a person can be against gay marriage without being "anti-gay" if their reasons aren't rooted in being against a person out of prejudice--if they have OTHER reasons that have nothing to do with that PERSON.
And of course I agree with you second qualifier.
For now though, I think I'll keep putting the phrase anti-gay in quotes. Er ... I mean, um, "anti-gay".