Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Bauglir]

Speaking for myself, I think that while, yes, forcing people to give up deeply held beliefs such as those inherent in bigotry is a cost, and not a negligible one at that, the value of those beliefs themselves is such a negative thing, and the damage done to people in the name of those rights so extreme that it's absurd to claim that bigots are being discriminated against by progressivism. Go watch Lllamas With Hats 3. Most of it's quite silly, but the argument that progressivism is inherently hypocritical and therefore flawed because it tries to force change on people who don't want it is about equivalent to Carl's claim of "That hurt my feelings. Now we're both in the wrong."

[NinjaBoot]

Fair warning NB, you're probably about to get piled in on a little. The position you're trying to defend, even if it's in good faith -- and I'm going to assume it is, despite the somewhat antagonistic tone I take -- is not easy to defend, because there is very little value in it.

There needs to be an opposing opinion for it to be an actual discussion!

Anyway, take the tone with a degree of softening. There's no ad hominim involved, but I am definitely attacking the position you're presenting. Still, the point of saying anything at all is to invite dialogue. Let's open the discussion, not close it.

I take delight in reading well constructed arguments, so I don't mind at all! (Whether mine is, is another matter entirely)

One of the big points here is that, in some states, they're not protected. You can be fired because you're LGBT. There's not very many reasons you can protest that everyone shouldn't be protected by law (Specifically, that's unconstitutional, from what I understand, in spirit if not letter. Equal protection.) -- pretty much the only reasons for it is either bigotry or ignorance. That's full stop it, unless you're arguing for total abolition of any laws protecting from unlawful firings.

If there's a third option, please provide it.

I am not arguing against the law, I am merely arguing against how people generally try and dictate how arguments
regarding these issues should go. 

As for a third option (if you can call it that), that would most likely be bringing this issue to light as what Truean is doing (hey, I now know about this issue now!).  How is that achieved?  Thats for another thread since it would take up too much space here (I am sure Truean knows the details though).

But yes, at least when it comes to LGBT, there's not much they can be but X (or Y), because those Xs or Ys are defined by the persons beliefs and actions re: LGBT individuals.

I believe you misunderstand me when I say that people who argue against it are branded X or Y, X or Y being bigot, ignorant, homophobic, etc etc..  NOT LGBT being either man or woman. 

That is the whole optic "progressives" use to argue for social change.  We must allow more of this, and those who say otherwise MUST be racist/homophobes/bigots/what have you.

The point is that the "must be bigots/homophobes" kind of follows logically from protesting the major social issues -- such as LGBT equality -- that progressives tend to support. There's not any -- full stop any -- reason outside of bigotry to support prejudice, especially institutional level prejudice, vs. LGBT people, ferex. [/quote]

Yes, I suppose Religious people (Christians and Islamists come to mind) are all bigots and ignorant because of what they believe in makes them naturally opposed to LGBT. 

It is tempting for me to employ the slippery slope argument, but I won't (I'll just note it) because I am sure you know where I will go with it (for the sake of argument really).

One: LGBT is not negative. Period.

I see I was not clear enough or I did not write well enough to express my point clearly enough, my apologies! 

No, I am not against LGBT.  That does not mean I am all for it either.  People are free to do what they want, but when it comes to issues like this, taking an all-for or all-against stance is intellectually counter productive.  By branding those who by any reason are not with LGBT as bigots or ignorant is stifling debate on a whole range of issues surrounding it. 

Remember, LGBT rights affect everyone.

The only downsides to people who fall under that umbrella come from other people. Bigotry, homophobia actually have major downsides from the person holding such thoughts flowing outward, instead of the other way around.

That is usually due to a lack of education, parenting, social circumstances and general individuality.  Sorry, but no matter how hard you try, it is just wrong to some people.  Does that make them bigots?  That depends.  When you talk about bigots you must make the distinction that bigots are actively looking to hurt LGBT's, not those who, while uncomfortable with them, have the professionalism to work with them, or are nice and courteous enough to acknowledge them as a person, hold a conversation, or whatever.

Two: LGBT don't frakking care if you're comfortable or not -- that's your prerogative, same as if you're not comfortable around people who don't look pretty. That doesn't mean you get to attack them, doesn't mean you get to fire them, doesn't mean you get to persecute them -- not because they're LGBT. That's what they care about and what they want. Equality.

Is it really equality when the government has to ensure that equality is maintained?  While you are ensuring their jobs, you are still failing to address why people may be uncomfortable with LGBT in the first place. 

There's only one "legitimate" reason for not being comfortable with LGBT -- and that's not being comfortable with them. Being squicked out is fine. Being squicked out doesn't give you the right to treat people as second class citizens.

Religion is the other legitimate reason.  But then religion is EVIL, amirite? 

I'll point out again that you must draw distinctions when discussing those who are squicked out.  There are alot of people who are squicked out that don't do anything but deal with it.

By doing this, you are literally scaring people to conform to another group's point of view for fear of being branded something socially unacceptable.  And that is why these issues are in the background because people cannot have a serious dialogue on these sort of issues without people pulling out the race/homophobe/bigot cards.

It's... pretty simple, really. When there's a serious dialogue that can be had without homophobia, bigotry, or ignorance being the root cause of it, then there's discussion to be had. I've personally yet to see any, at all, arguments for the persecution or removal of rights of LGBT that doesn't have its base in one of the three.

I am, uh, not arguing for the persecution of LGBT.  I am arguing against the blanket statements leveled at those who may hold opposing view points. 

By calling the other side a bunch of bigots, homophobes, and ignorant is not a serious dialogue, its mere name calling. 

I suppose you could argue that by suppressing people's natural opinions on things like these, you are forcing their displeasure to come out in different ways (your boss is harder on you at work for example).

There's no "forcing" involved.

Indeed, since the bill is aimed at government employees only, there is no forcing religious institutions, or private industries for the matter.

Their displeasure is their own damn problem and if it's being expressed on other people, yes, it is the displeased person's fault. There's no excuse for it.

It all depends on how they express it. 

Also, natural doesn't mean right. Remember that.

Indeed, but everybody's opinion is natural to them.  Does it mean they are right?  Of course not, but then you cannot argue that you are right by saying they are bigots and ignorant because people don't agree with you.

But yes, props to Penguin for emphasizing that. Ignorance is generally a greater problem than genuine bigotry (though they're both great problems). The former is much easier to fix.
[/quote]

[NinjaBoot]

Speaking for myself, I think that while, yes, forcing people to give up deeply held beliefs such as those inherent in bigotry is a cost, and not a negligible one at that, the value of those beliefs themselves is such a negative thing, and the damage done to people in the name of those rights so extreme that it's absurd to claim that bigots are being discriminated against by progressivism. Go watch Lllamas With Hats 3. Most of it's quite silly, but the argument that progressivism is inherently hypocritical and therefore flawed because it tries to force change on people who don't want it is about equivalent to Carl's claim of "That hurt my feelings. Now we're both in the wrong."

Progressivism is hypocritical because it calls others bigots, hypocrites, liars, etc etc because they do not agree with their point of view, much like what Christianity and Islam did to people who didn't believe in what they believed back in the day, 'cept without the torture and killings.

[G-Flex]

The above doesn't even touch on the fact that unfortunately alot of people will never be comfortable with transsexuals (or gays or lesbians).  They can have any numerous amounts of reasons, whether they are legitimate reasons or not, but if they were to voice those opinions, they would be branded something equally as negative.  By doing this, you are literally scaring people to conform to another group's point of view for fear of being branded something socially unacceptable.  And that is why these issues are in the background because people cannot have a serious dialogue on these sort of issues without people pulling out the race/homophobe/bigot cards.  I suppose you could argue that by suppressing people's natural opinions on things like these, you are forcing their displeasure to come out in different ways (your boss is harder on you at work for example).

I do think progressives tend to shoot themselves in the foot by being overly caustic sometimes. It doesn't help, as it just serves to alienate people from accepting their point of view, much less agree with it.

... Hell, I've had progressives act like that towards me, and I am pretty progressive! So I certainly see your point.

No, I am not against LGBT.  That does not mean I am all for it either.  People are free to do what they want, but when it comes to issues like this, taking an all-for or all-against stance is intellectually counter productive.  By branding those who by any reason are not with LGBT as bigots or ignorant is stifling debate on a whole range of issues surrounding it.

Remember, LGBT rights affect everyone.

Would you find it wrong to call someone a racist for thinking blacks shouldn't have their civil rights protected? Why is this any different?

Progressivism is hypocritical because it calls others bigots, hypocrites, liars, etc etc because they do not agree with their point of view, much like what Christianity and Islam did to people who didn't believe in what they believed back in the day, 'cept without the torture and killings.

Sigh. Please don't do this. There are some awful, intolerant, ridiculous progressives out there, but that's not what progressivism is. Please don't confuse the thing itself with its most caustic adherents.

That being said: Yes, I think it is fair to call someone a bigot if their point of view is bigoted.

[scriver]

Remember, LGBT rights affect everyone.

...How does it being illegal to fire people for being gay or gay people being able to marry affect me? It doesn't.

Progressivism is hypocritical because it calls others bigots, hypocrites, liars, etc etc because they do not agree with their point of view, much like what Christianity and Islam did to people who didn't believe in what they believed back in the day, 'cept without the torture and killings.

And even disregarding what G-Flex said, how does that make "progressives" hypocritical, exactly?

[NinjaBoot]

Would you find it wrong to call someone a racist for thinking blacks shouldn't have their civil rights protected? Why is this any different?

Welcome to free speech, where everybody and anybody is free to express their opinion.  And yes, they would be racist for saying that.

But yes, its very different for any number of reasons.  Throw in any social science term you want. 

We all know that targeting and singling out LGBT for negative treatment is a no-no.  Yes, LGBT's should be getting equal rights and equality.  We all know this. 

Focusing on the bigots and ignorant masses is not helping this discussion. 

Progressivism is hypocritical because it calls others bigots, hypocrites, liars, etc etc because they do not agree with their point of view, much like what Christianity and Islam did to people who didn't believe in what they believed back in the day, 'cept without the torture and killings.

Sigh. Please don't do this. There are some awful, intolerant, ridiculous progressives out there, but that's not what progressivism is. Please don't confuse the thing itself with its most caustic adherents.

Of course not, its about change through government.. *sigh*  I'll save my rants for another thread.

That being said: Yes, I think it is fair to call someone a bigot if their point of view is bigoted.

Of course, but then at what point does one become a bigot?  Ones who openly express it or ones who deal with it and don't let it affect them (or are closet bigots)?

[NinjaBoot]

Remember, LGBT rights affect everyone.

...How does it being illegal to fire people for being gay or gay people being able to marry affect me? It doesn't.

I am referring to the social impact it has on LGBT and those who hold positive/negative views on the situation. 

Progressivism is hypocritical because it calls others bigots, hypocrites, liars, etc etc because they do not agree with their point of view, much like what Christianity and Islam did to people who didn't believe in what they believed back in the day, 'cept without the torture and killings.

And even disregarding what G-Flex said, how does that make "progressives" hypocritical, exactly?

Because of the complete stonewalling of opposing opinions.  Again, it is all for or against.  All those who feel otherwise are lumped with all the other bigots, whateverphobes, and ignorant masses. 

Government is all about ensuring free speech, but progressives seem more apt to define the rules of the discussion from the outset.  What I say goes, but whatever you say must adhere to a strict guideline otherwise I win the discussion by calling you a bigot/whateverphobe/ignorant. 

Take this discussion we are having right now.  I point out my lack of knowledge regarding these laws and I get whip-lashed.  Oh, its because I am ignorant, or whatever. 

[Frumple]

I am not arguing against the law, I am merely arguing against how people generally try and dictate how arguments regarding these issues should go.

It does get a little heated, yeah.

I believe you misunderstand me when I say that people who argue against it are branded X or Y, X or Y being bigot, ignorant, homophobic, etc etc..  NOT LGBT being either man or woman.

Nah, there wasn't any misunderstanding there. The label bigot, homophobic, etc., etc., is specifically placed due to beliefs and actions re: LGBT individuals.

Yes, I suppose Religious people (Christians and Islamists come to mind) are all bigots and ignorant because of what they believe in makes them naturally opposed to LGBT.

Well, there's two statements there, actually. The first bit, that all religious people are bigots and ignorant, is of course false -- there's many religious individuals, of the abrahamic traditions as well as others, that are neither bigoted nor ignorant; hell, technically bigotry of any sort can be interpreted as heresy in relation to Christianity -- it's pretty blatantly against the teachings of Christ.

The second bit's also false -- Christianity especially has no excuse outside of a couple of blatantly heretical lines in their holy text for the persecution they've heaped on homosexuals in particular. There's little inherent to most of the major religions themselves that makes them naturally opposed to LGBT individuals.

There is a common problem with bigots attempting to use religion to justify their beliefs and actions, yes, but that's generally because they can't find an argument to justify their persecution of their fellow man that's not axiomatic.

I see I was not clear enough or I did not write well enough to express my point clearly enough, my apologies! 

No, I am not against LGBT.  That does not mean I am all for it either.  People are free to do what they want, but when it comes to issues like this, taking an all-for or all-against stance is intellectually counter productive.  By branding those who by any reason are not with LGBT as bigots or ignorant is stifling debate on a whole range of issues surrounding it. 

Remember, LGBT rights affect everyone.

All I can really note in relation to this bit is that there's not much outside of the prevention of vicious persecution in which LGBT rights affect anyone not LGBT. There's no right to persecute and abuse, no right to treat a fellow human being as filth for something that has done no and can do no harm to other people.

I wouldn't mind if you expanded that point a bit, though. I hear it occasionally, but I've never really had it clearly expressed how LGBT rights negatively impact the rest of society.

That is usually due to a lack of education, parenting, social circumstances and general individuality.  Sorry, but no matter how hard you try, it is just wrong to some people.  Does that make them bigots?  That depends.

Well, no, it doesn't really depend. For LGBT issues specifically, bigotry or ignorance is really the only reason to think it's wrong.

Not for them, sure. Not of interest, of course, that's fine. But wrong is a much stronger position than that, and when you judge a person for something they are instead of something they do, you've crossed the line into bigotry. And the issue of homosexual sex is, as strange as that may sound to some, not necessarily correlated to homosexual individuals. The issue of homosexual sex is also much more clear cut, as any of the inherently negative aspects of it have long been rectified by medical advances -- and weren't any greater than the issues related to heterosexual sex, really.

When you talk about bigots you must make the distinction that bigots are actively looking to hurt LGBT's, not those who, while uncomfortable with them, have the professionalism to work with them, or are nice and courteous enough to acknowledge them as a person, hold a conversation, or whatever.

But this still holds true, yes. That kind of belief isn't quite as damaging, but it still has repercussions.

Is it really equality when the government has to ensure that equality is maintained?  While you are ensuring their jobs, you are still failing to address why people may be uncomfortable with LGBT in the first place.

Basically, it's the equality the states are promised: No discrimination (of the sort we're discussing here) on any level beyond the civil, and only in certain instances (Namely privacy of your own home) on the civil level.

Religion is the other legitimate reason.  But then religion is EVIL, amirite?

Religiously motivated bigotry is still bigotry. Ignorance being excused or flaunted due to religion is still ignorance. Religion isn't evil, no, but people are quite happy to use it to excuse evil. Which doesn't fly, really. It's generally a very powerful insult to the core teachings of the person's religion -- none of the major religions differ on that.

I'll point out again that you must draw distinctions when discussing those who are squicked out.  There are alot of people who are squicked out that don't do anything but deal with it.

Yeah, see above a bit. There's not much difference from that as there is not wanting a physical relationship with someone you're not attracted to. If the level of reaction was limited to that, it wouldn't be an issue.

I am, uh, not arguing for the persecution of LGBT.  I am arguing against the blanket statements leveled at those who may hold opposing view points. 

By calling the other side a bunch of bigots, homophobes, and ignorant is not a serious dialogue, its mere name calling.

Interestingly, it's not actually "mere name calling." It's specifically identifying the issue(s) with the position said other side is holding. I'll agree that simple blanket name calling doesn't exactly help, no, but that's generally not actually what's happening.

I suppose you could argue that by suppressing people's natural opinions on things like these, you are forcing their displeasure to come out in different ways (your boss is harder on you at work for example).

There's no "forcing" involved.

Indeed, since the bill is aimed at government employees only, there is no forcing religious institutions, or private industries for the matter.

Ah, this was a little misinterpreted. I meant that there was nothing forcing the displeased to vent their displeasure in circumspect ways simply because they don't have legal ones. If that displeasure's being vented, it's on the head of the displeased.

Their displeasure is their own damn problem and if it's being expressed on other people, yes, it is the displeased person's fault. There's no excuse for it.

It all depends on how they express it.

It's an issue if it's being expressed, more or less. If it stays in the head and doesn't start influencing actions -- including speech, yes, in certain situations -- then we've got no problem.

Indeed, but everybody's opinion is natural to them.  Does it mean they are right?  Of course not, but then you cannot argue that you are right by saying they are bigots and ignorant because people don't agree with you.

Yeah, definitely true enough. Simple name calling because of disagreement, and dismissing others because of that is pretty poor etiquette.

Of course not, its about change through government.. *sigh*  I'll save my rants for another thread.

This is, uh, actually, not what progressivism is about. Change via government is a potential tool of progressive activism, yes, same as most other forms of activism, but neither the full depth nor breadth of progressive views. Many progressive issues would be a lot better off not involving top-down (i.e. governmental) solutions at all -- bottom-up is a lot more effective and lasting for a number of the key problems progressivism is attempt to address (LGBT issues among them). But there's difficulties with some of the issues as well (LGBT being among them, yeah) that means that a governmental solution is the quickest and most effective way to at least be able to start implementing the change from the bottom up.

Anyway, 4 AM. Need nap, but I'll happily respond to anything that someone else hasn't beat me to after I wake up

[Bauglir]

I don't see how it stonewalls opposing viewpoints any more than any other worldview, and since progressivism isn't actually about automatically accepting any viewpoint in the first place (though you'll certainly find people who claim it to be so, I agree that theirs is an unworkable belief system), it's not actually particularly hypocritical about it.

[Truean]

Also, my apologies for not responding to your earlier comments in due haste (work 'n all that, plus DF!)

To your comment regarding LGBT and the negative social implications (and all that other hoopla), well.. uhm..

First off, yes, it is essentially "common knowledge" that we HAVE to accept people for who they are regardless of whatever we may believe (its what is crammed down our throats in school, social media, etc etc ad nauseum).  And that is where the problem for me is. We are forcing people into accepting a certain point of view on a certain topic because it is what we want (or what certain people want), and if people are against it, then they must be x (or y).  "Oh, so and so doesn't agree with me that LGBT people should be protected by the law against unlawful firings, because he is obviously a bigot/ignorant/ or something of the like."

That is the whole optic "progressives" use to argue for social change.  We must allow more of this, and those who say otherwise MUST be racist/homophobes/bigots/what have you. 

The above doesn't even touch on the fact that unfortunately alot of people will never be comfortable with transsexuals (or gays or lesbians).  They can have any numerous amounts of reasons, whether they are legitimate reasons or not, but if they were to voice those opinions, they would be branded something equally as negative.  By doing this, you are literally scaring people to conform to another group's point of view for fear of being branded something socially unacceptable.  And that is why these issues are in the background because people cannot have a serious dialogue on these sort of issues without people pulling out the race/homophobe/bigot cards.  I suppose you could argue that by suppressing people's natural opinions on things like these, you are forcing their displeasure to come out in different ways (your boss is harder on you at work for example).

Those who don't learn from history are doomed to repeat it. Every single solitary syllable you've said has been said before about not accpeting black people in the US. Yes, it's forced down the throats of assholes, as be it must, because this has all been done before and a.) the reasons against acceptance are all complete bullshit, all of them, every single one b.) they never listen and have no intention of doing anything but explaining why they are right and being pissed at you for asking them to change. It's the bigoted bastards who get violent first and its those people who don't listen to reason.

It doesn't matter that group A is not and never will be comfortable with group B. That doesn't give them the right to treat group B like subhuman burdens and to ruin their lives....

I don't care if they're homophobic/bigoted assholes or if they're just supporting the opinions of homophobic bigoted assholes; same difference. "Well I'm not a bigoted asshole, but hey, I think the people who oppose extending human rights to group B should be allowed to do so. If that makes group B completely miserable and denies them basic human rights, then so be it. After all, who cares if you're denying people basic human rights and the shadow of a chance to earn a place in society, after all we mustn't crush dissent....

The problem with these people's feelings and really their displeasure with being called what they are: either bigots or people who passively at best support bigots, is that they think they even have the right to consider denying basic human rights to people. They don't have the right to consider that and if they don't like it then screw them straight to hell. No, no, consider reversing the situation. Put yourself in the shoes of the person you are condemning. Imagine there are a shit ton of people who don't like some harmless thing you are doing.... Doesn't hurt them in the slightest but hey it bugs them. Never mind that's its very important to you. Never mind that you might not even be able to stop doing it or that again, it hurts no one. They don't want you to do it and they either never give you a reason or the reasons are all consistently bullshit.

The house example: {I'm sure he's a swell guy and nobody has gotten a lynch mob to run him out of town ever}
Let's pretend. Everyone in town has decided they hate your guts. They don't want you living or working or anything in town ever again. They don't care. They say you wear funny clothes and have a weird accent and you listen to music they don't like. They don't like that you hang out in the park and have your friends come over, so they've all voted that screw you, you're leaving town and they don't care what happens to you or your house or your job. You wanna have a nice calm discussion with the angry fucking mob that's barely restraining itself from tar and feathering you? Heaven forbid you call them unreasonable or irrational, how dare you, they only want to screw up your life without reason or without good reason. Now, they don't care what you do but they never wanna have to see it because you make them uncomfortable....

No, nobody gets to cast people out of society because just they don't like them or are uncomfortable with them and if anyone thinks they get to do that, then they're a total, complete, absolute and unmitigated asshole. If they don't like being called that, then that's sorta their problem. I shouldn't have to plead with someone for the right to merely exist in society. They would never do that, so why should I? I shouldn't ever, EVER, have to convince anyone that I have the right to walk around outside without being assaulted physically or otherwise. I shouldn't ever have to convince anyone that just because I'm gay  doesn't mean I'm a child molester. I shouldn't ever have to convince anyone that just because I'm gay doesn't mean I'm not good at my job. I shouldn't ever have to convince anyone of any of this shit. They don't have to; why should I? Its a given .... Except it's not with me, because.... Well I like men so .... Now I have to defend myself against this in their mind....

Do you see how wrong that would be?

Let's really put what you have to say in practice, shall we? The murder example {Note: He hasn't murdered anyone or done anything bad}[/i][/u]
Let's pretend. Hey, let's have a nice long discussion about how certain people think you're a wanted felon who murdered 34 people including a bus full of nuns and 2 babies in front of their mothers while playing hookie from your job while drunk off your ass and high on all sorts of illegal drugs? What? So that's completely baseless too and you shouldn't have to defend yourself against that kind of complete and utter bullshit? Of course it is and that sounds just like all the assholes who think it's OK to think that all gays are pedophiles and that this view should be respected! Somebody murdered those people/there's a problem and they think it was you.... It isn't like 34 corpses and a crapload of drugs just come out of nowhere.... If not you then who...?

Hey, they certainly shouldn't be forced to change these completely irrational, factually untrue absolutely harmful if taken seriously views. Let's have a nice long discussion about how you didn't murder those 34 people and of course you'd say you didn't but I'm not going to believe you. Who would admit to that? It's just like everyone's innocent in prison, right? Nothing you say can be trusted even though it's completely true and of course you never killed anyone.

Hey, who cares if I go around calling you a murderer and getting you fired from your job and if I make sure the families of all your friends disapprove of you. I'll say you got arrested and you really did kill all those people but you got off on a technicality or some bullshit. You will never be looked at the same way again, but you should never ever force me to change my batshit crazy beliefs.  And if I'm an incredibly persuasive person who convinces a lot of people that you actually did murder those people, you still shouldn't force me to change those beliefs! Let's say that suing me was ineffective because I'm an attorney and I know how to manipulate the shit out of the law and win on a technicality. Still can't force me or make me feel bad for ruining your life with patently false beliefs? And, I'd certainly be offended if you called me a malicious liar, true or not..... Let's say I put up such a convincing, bullshit smokescreen that you actually couldn't prove you didnt kill those people. Your alibis consist of "you were at home watching TV or playing some computer game called "Dwarf Fortress," a violent little game about killing dwarf babies, releasing demons from hell, reading about graphic depictions of severed limbs flying everywhere, and generally graphic bloody mayhem? That sounds a little.... Your alibi is that you were alone playing a computer game about.... Sounds like people who like games like that are fun just must have all kinds of deep seated problems (I personally love playing DF).

Do you see how wrong that would be? Do you see how anyone who holds and acts on those kinds of completely false beliefs should totally be forced to change those beliefs and apologize to you for it? It hurts people. Real people--the innocent kind.... Like you; like me.

Summation:
Extreme? Inapplicable? Hardly. That funny look I get when people figure out I'm not only gay but sincerely want to be a woman.... Yeah. You know, the one right before they either a.) never talk to me again, b.) pretend to be ok with it but then never talk to me again, or c.) tell me I'm the reason God doesn't talk to us anymore, is 'round about the look I would imagine somebody getting if they murdered 34 people. When my best friend's mother tells her daughter and I that we can't be friends because I'm a "faggot," it feels like she's saying "felon" and she might as well be. When I got made fun of as a kid and beaten the living shit out of repeatedly, yeah.... When I got fired for being gay, it wasn't rather like how you'd fire someone for a criminal offense. They didn't say the words, they spat them at me.

Do you understand that, in real life, I am unfortunately a pathetic, miserable human being because people get to have crazy beliefs about me that just ruin my life: family, job, social, everything? Do you also understand that I am the single most harmless person you have ever associated with? Do you understand that I have cried myself to sleep repeatedly, because people do these kinds of things to me, when I have NEVER done anything mean to them at all. Do you understand the fact that I live my life in fear and go to ridiculous lengths to be overly polite to people? The only way I can even begin to relate what it is like to be that kind of outcast is to use the examples of being either driven out of town for no good reason, or falsely accused of several murders....

TL;DR: No, I should never have to convince the entire human race that I deserve basic human rights. That should be assumed from the beginning. Being effectively exiled from society because people believe horribly, patently untrue things about you and simply refuse to give up those beliefs/stop ruining your life even in the face of absolute proof that those beliefs are wrong, isn't right. I can't believe anyone would ever seriously say, I should have to convince people who don't like GLBT to give me basic human rights, when we all know they won't do that no matter what I say. No person, should have to beg for human rights.... It isn't a free speech issue either, because you can say any bigoted thing you want in this country, but free speech also means people get to tell you exactly what they think of what you say <----- That's what people who are against GLBT have a problem about when they're called bigoted. Free speech: a two way street....

[NinjaBoot]

Frumple:

Descan posted a nice point regarding social changing eventually happening when the "old guard" dies out and is taken over by the younger.  Inasmuch this is what progressivism is at heart I suppose.  Just trying to enact the changes faster! 

Long story short, eventually we will be at a point where people will accept LGBT as equal people. 

Bauglir:

It is what the issue at heart with LGBT is, only with language, but in reverse (Sorry, I'm stoned).  Corner opposing belief systems (religion, what have you) and mercilessly unleash hell on them for holding such views.  It doesn't even have to be about LGBT. It is whatever you believe in.  Bigger government?  Those who oppose it are obviously in the pocket of Big Corporations. 

It is not necessarily about accepting any viewpoint, just taking the viewpoint you already have and using that as the means to define what is right and wrong in a debate. 

This is where 'Political Correctness' comes from.  Can't offend anyone!

[NinjaBoot]

Those who don't learn from history are doomed to repeat it. Every single solitary syllable you've said has been said before about not accpeting black people in the US.

The situations are not as extreme as it was back then.  Is it bad?  Yes, but its nowhere, NOWHERE near what black people went through.  Trying to draw comparisons between the two is absurd. 

I am not arguing for people who are bigots, or hold opposing viewpoints.  I am arguing against the whole need for creating the all for or against mentality.   

Yes, it's forced down the throats of assholes, as be it must

Because of this mentality you are turning off people who are sitting on the fence. 

because this has all been done before and a.) the reasons against acceptance are all complete bullshit, all of them, every single one b.) they never listen and have no intention of doing anything but explaining why they are right and being pissed at you for asking them to change. It's the bigoted bastards who get violent first and its those people who don't listen to reason.

Unfortunately no matter how much you try you will never eliminate people who do these kinds of things.  We still have rednecks (white people!) lynching black people because they're racist.   Remember, half the people you meet are below average, and thus accounting for that, half the people you meet will obviously hold onto some backwards belief that is hurtful. 

As for the other half, well, at the very least, they don't like being called bigots for not immediately jumping onto the bandwagon! 

Hell, most people don't have an opinion one way or the other.  They've never met a transsexual.  They don't see it as an important issue.  They've never had any personal experience, heard any stories, seen any printed media, visual media (cable television) regarding it, or just honestly don't know what to make of it. 

It doesn't matter that group A is not and never will be comfortable with group B. That doesn't give them the right to treat group B like subhuman burdens and to ruin their lives....

Of course not, but even if these laws were enacted, punishment will only happen after the fact. 

I don't care if they're homophobic/bigoted assholes or if they're just supporting the opinions of homophobic bigoted assholes; same difference. "Well I'm not a bigoted asshole, but hey, I think the people who oppose extending human rights to group B should be allowed to do so. If that makes group B completely miserable and denies them basic human rights, then so be it. After all, who cares if you're denying people basic human rights and the shadow of a chance to earn a place in society, after all we mustn't crush dissent....

Even if you extend basic human rights it will still not stop people from being fucking assholes. 

And no, I am not "crush(ing) dissent".  Far from it, I am trying to open your viewpoint to include people who, while rather supportive of the cause at heart, may not be entirely comfortable with LGBT.  It is to give these people a chance to say, "yeah, I may not be entirely cool with LGBT, but I do agree that giving them basic human rights and treating them as equal human beings is a must, please don't call us bigots because we may think L/G/B/T is freaky/squicky/something we may not agree 100% with." 

The problem with these people's feelings and really their displeasure with being called what they are: either bigots or people who passively at best support bigots, is that they think they even have the right to consider denying basic human rights to people.

So your telling me that LGBT can't vote, own land, or enjoy the other ammenities afforded to all other Americans? 

What you are talking about, rather, is the cultural perception that people have.  It is the view that, irregardless of whatever the laws say, people of the older generation are against it.  And unfortunately, the older generation are unfortunately the ones who populate the majority of jobs where they oversee employment.  This leads to what you are discussing, I think.  Where these people use their bigotry to overtly deny employment to LGBT. 

They don't have the right to consider that and if they don't like it then screw them straight to hell.

You are using the exact same mind-frame they are using to oppress and hold you back. 

No, no, consider reversing the situation. Put yourself in the shoes of the person you are condemning. Imagine there are a shit ton of people who don't like some harmless thing you are doing.... Doesn't hurt them in the slightest but hey it bugs them. Never mind that's its very important to you. Never mind that you might not even be able to stop doing it or that again, it hurts no one. They don't want you to do it and they either never give you a reason or the reasons are all consistently bullshit.

I was picked on by my entire age-range in the town I grew up in when I went to school from grades 3 to 9.  In a small school and town it really hurts because you see these pricks everyday, and yes, it was hell.  But you know what?  Fuck them.  Focusing on them and the people who constantly torture you will only bring you more pain and suffering.  At some point you will just have to let go and accept that there are assholes and dickheads out there, and learn to live your life with all that these pricks throw at you. 

The house example: {I'm sure he's a swell guy and nobody has gotten a lynch mob to run him out of town ever}
Let's pretend. Everyone in town has decided they hate your guts. They don't want you living or working or anything in town ever again. They don't care. They say you wear funny clothes and have a weird accent and you listen to music they don't like. They don't like that you hang out in the park and have your friends come over, so they've all voted that screw you, you're leaving town and they don't care what happens to you or your house or your job. You wanna have a nice calm discussion with the angry fucking mob that's barely restraining itself from tar and feathering you? Heaven forbid you call them unreasonable or irrational, how dare you, they only want to screw up your life without reason or without good reason. Now, they don't care what you do but they never wanna have to see it because you make them uncomfortable....

No, nobody gets to cast people out of society because just they don't like them or are uncomfortable with them and if anyone thinks they get to do that, then they're a total, complete, absolute and unmitigated asshole. If they don't like being called that, then that's sorta their problem. I shouldn't have to plead with someone for the right to merely exist in society. They would never do that, so why should I? I shouldn't ever, EVER, have to convince anyone that I have the right to walk around outside without being assaulted physically or otherwise. I shouldn't ever have to convince anyone that just because I'm gay  doesn't mean I'm a child molester. I shouldn't ever have to convince anyone that just because I'm gay doesn't mean I'm not good at my job. I shouldn't ever have to convince anyone of any of this shit. They don't have to; why should I? Its a given .... Except it's not with me, because.... Well I like men so .... Now I have to defend myself against this in their mind....

Do you see how wrong that would be?

Yes the world is fucked up, what else do you want me to say?

Let's really put what you have to say in practice, shall we? The murder example {Note: He hasn't murdered anyone or done anything bad}[/i][/u]
Let's pretend. Hey, let's have a nice long discussion about how certain people think you're a wanted felon who murdered 34 people including a bus full of nuns and 2 babies in front of their mothers while playing hookie from your job while drunk off your ass and high on all sorts of illegal drugs? What? So that's completely baseless too and you shouldn't have to defend yourself against that kind of complete and utter bullshit? Of course it is and that sounds just like all the assholes who think it's OK to think that all gays are pedophiles and that this view should be respected! Somebody murdered those people/there's a problem and they think it was you.... It isn't like 34 corpses and a crapload of drugs just come out of nowhere.... If not you then who...?

Hey, they certainly shouldn't be forced to change these completely irrational, factually untrue absolutely harmful if taken seriously views. Let's have a nice long discussion about how you didn't murder those 34 people and of course you'd say you didn't but I'm not going to believe you. Who would admit to that? It's just like everyone's innocent in prison, right? Nothing you say can be trusted even though it's completely true and of course you never killed anyone.

Hey, who cares if I go around calling you a murderer and getting you fired from your job and if I make sure the families of all your friends disapprove of you. I'll say you got arrested and you really did kill all those people but you got off on a technicality or some bullshit. You will never be looked at the same way again, but you should never ever force me to change my batshit crazy beliefs.  And if I'm an incredibly persuasive person who convinces a lot of people that you actually did murder those people, you still shouldn't force me to change those beliefs! Let's say that suing me was ineffective because I'm an attorney and I know how to manipulate the shit out of the law and win on a technicality. Still can't force me or make me feel bad for ruining your life with patently false beliefs? And, I'd certainly be offended if you called me a malicious liar, true or not..... Let's say I put up such a convincing, bullshit smokescreen that you actually couldn't prove you didnt kill those people. Your alibis consist of "you were at home watching TV or playing some computer game called "Dwarf Fortress," a violent little game about killing dwarf babies, releasing demons from hell, reading about graphic depictions of severed limbs flying everywhere, and generally graphic bloody mayhem? That sounds a little.... Your alibi is that you were alone playing a computer game about.... Sounds like people who like games like that are fun just must have all kinds of deep seated problems (I personally love playing DF).

Do you see how wrong that would be? Do you see how anyone who holds and acts on those kinds of completely false beliefs should totally be forced to change those beliefs and apologize to you for it? It hurts people. Real people--the innocent kind.... Like you; like me.

I honestly don't know what to say to this. 

Summation:
Extreme? Inapplicable? Hardly. That funny look I get when people figure out I'm not only gay but sincerely want to be a woman.... Yeah.

I admire your conviction to be open about it, not being afraid to hide. 

You know, the one right before they either a.) never talk to me again, b.) pretend to be ok with it but then never talk to me again, or c.) tell me I'm the reason God doesn't talk to us anymore, is 'round about the look I would imagine somebody getting if they murdered 34 people.

I am sorry to have to point out that you are in a very small minority (if I am wrong about this please enlighten me).  So finding like-minded people who totally dig what you want to do is going to be a very hard, trying and long process. 

It is even doubly cruel for me to have to point out that alot of people are, again, petty vile human beings.  But for godsakes, at least be optimistic enough to realize that there are people out there that do feel for what you are going through and do honestly want to help you in achieving what you want.  These people include those who may not be totally comfortable with what you want to do, again, because they believe in equality for all.

Do you understand that, in real life, I am unfortunately a pathetic, miserable human being because people get to have crazy beliefs about me that just ruin my life: family, job, social, everything?

You are not pathetic, you are honestly a tough individual to have survived with all this heaped on you.  Lesser people would have folded the tent by now, but you seem to still be fighting and kicking, and that in itself means alot.

Do you also understand that I am the single most harmless person you have ever associated with?

Just because you are harmless doesn't mean you shouldn't defend yourself.  At some point you will have to say enough is enough and politely inform people they are pricks/dicks/assholes/bigots/whatever for doing what they do to you.  Slapping people down with words and well-formed arguments and showing them for the shallow petty people they are hurt more than physical violence and rather dry one-word derogatory terms. 

Do you understand that I have cried myself to sleep repeatedly, because people do these kinds of things to me, when I have NEVER done anything mean to them at all. Do you understand the fact that I live my life in fear and go to ridiculous lengths to be overly polite to people? The only way I can even begin to relate what it is like to be that kind of outcast is to use the examples of being either driven out of town for no good reason, or falsely accused of several murders....

Hey, I've cried myself to sleep a bunch of times because of what people have done.  It fucking hurts.  But then at some point, you have to realize that tears won't fix your situation.  Turn all that hate, anger, rage, frustration and sadness into the fine point of determination to improve your situation (physically feeling good about yourself [going to the gym], mentally conditioning yourself[steeling your resolve]) and get out of where you are to find people who accept you for who you are and are not bigots and assholes. 

TL;DR: No, I should never have to convince the entire human race that I deserve basic human rights. That should be assumed from the beginning.

Expecting things of others will only lead to disappointment. Expect nothing, and what good comes your way is that much sweeter.

Being effectively exiled from society because people believe horribly, patently untrue things about you and simply refuse to give up those beliefs/stop ruining your life even in the face of absolute proof that those beliefs are wrong, isn't right.

So one-up them and live a happy and successful life.  Win in the face of adversity, courage wolf stuff!  Seriously!

I can't believe anyone would ever seriously say, I should have to convince people who don't like GLBT to give me basic human rights, when we all know they won't do that no matter what I say.

I apologize if my wording made it seem that you would have to convince people to give you equality on the basis of your sexual orientation, that was never my intent.  Merely for the intellectual discussion and exchange of ideas, and keeping things as open as possible, which unfortunately may include ideas or opinions that may be uncomfortable. 

No person, should have to beg for human rights....

Of course not, the problem is not with government having to enact laws like these, it is that government has to even consider such laws in the first place.  Again, this is about cultural (general?) perception, ie: people being against it regardless of the law or not. 

It isn't a free speech issue either, because you can say any bigoted thing you want in this country, but free speech also means people get to tell you exactly what they think of what you say <----- That's what people who are against GLBT have a problem about when they're called bigoted. Free speech: a two way street....

It comes down to free speech if you seek to actively define and dictate the terms of how people should approach the argument.  It is a very, very fine line to walk when discussing such issues because there are alot of heavy and heated opinions regarding this. 

And yes, unfortunately due to stupid people being smart enough to know how to abuse laws and shit (I'm looking at you westboro), we have to put up with alot of these kinds of abuses "within the law" (damn lawyers).  Such is the double edge of free speech, or the weakness of language due to such abuses due to semantics and sophistry. 

[Montague]

Is this discussion about same sex marriage?

Is the ability to get married really a right or is it a privilege? What is the purpose of marriage in society?

I'd point out that same-sex marriage can include two straight people of the same sex to be married. With the laws the way they are now, this could be a window for potential abuse, say, if two wealthy CEO's of the same sex decide to get married. They'd pay less taxes from joint filing and could benefit from other legal aspects of the marriage there is nothing preventing them from having extramarital relations or whatever else. It'd simply be a sort of business agreement.

Some people might object to same-sex marriage because there is the potential for abuse in this manner and might question the purpose or legal handling of marriage in the first place. You could hardly accuse them of being bigots or whatever if this was their rational.

[G-Flex]

I'd point out that same-sex marriage can include two straight people of the same sex to be married. With the laws the way they are now, this could be a window for potential abuse, say, if two wealthy CEO's of the same sex decide to get married. They'd pay less taxes from joint filing and could benefit from other legal aspects of the marriage there is nothing preventing them from having extramarital relations or whatever else. It'd simply be a sort of business agreement.

... How is this any more open to abuse than, say, two CEOs of opposite gender doing the same? This is a complete red herring that is endemic to marriage itself, not gay marriage specifically.

Some people might object to same-sex marriage because there is the potential for abuse in this manner and might question the purpose or legal handling of marriage in the first place. You could hardly accuse them of being bigots or whatever if this was their rational.

Except then they should be criticizing marriage itself, not gay marriage in particular.

[Aequor]

Is this discussion about same sex marriage?

Is the ability to get married really a right or is it a privilege? What is the purpose of marriage in society?

I'd point out that same-sex marriage can include two straight people of the same sex to be married. With the laws the way they are now, this could be a window for potential abuse, say, if two wealthy CEO's of the same sex decide to get married. They'd pay less taxes from joint filing and could benefit from other legal aspects of the marriage there is nothing preventing them from having extramarital relations or whatever else. It'd simply be a sort of business agreement.

Some people might object to same-sex marriage because there is the potential for abuse in this manner and might question the purpose or legal handling of marriage in the first place. You could hardly accuse them of being bigots or whatever if this was their rational.

Straight marriages are abused for legal benefits all the time.

Let's ban those.