Understanding the ‘other side’

[bradly1101]

I have been so egotistical as to believe that people who don’t believe as I do are either misinformed or are purposely ignorant about the truth of a topic. This belief adds to the division. Although I respect their difference of opinion, I didn’t see that my truth and their truth can be totally different.

For example: There are people who are anti-gay and point to the bible as an authority on “men laying with men.” My point of view is that the entire bible is a morality tale for the time it was written. The bible supports slavery many times (gotta love that last one), and it took a horribly deadly war to end it in this country not that long ago (of course it still exists in various forms in other nations).

So the bible supports slavery and shuns gays, while all of us shun the first and many of us support the second. So can the bible be used as an effective morality tale for these times? So could those who are anti-gay be wrong (even if they’re a strangely popular Reality-TV star ;-))? I do believe they have the right to express their feelings no matter what.

I make that argument in my mind and to me it seems logical, but others disagree so vehemently that sometimes some of them even become violent toward gays. To them being anti-gay is okay just as much as I think it’s not. I have to accept this as fact, and in doing so I must accept their thoughts and feelings as fact. I can’t see it through their eyes, but I can understand them because I believe differently yet just as deeply (this side of violence).

The depth of feeling is what we have in common, and I can start to turn in their direction just to raise my awareness of how it might be to feel differently.

While deeply believing in something, it is difficult to do a one-eighty even just to see where someone else is coming from, but I think it’s necessary for our global society to become more civil and sophisticated. Everywhere I look I see deep, seemingly intractable divisions; the U.S., parts of the Middle-East, parts of Asia, Africa…

Increased understanding prevents me from wanting to get into anybody else’s face about my beliefs. Could better understanding help our world’s many deep, sometimes violent divisions? Am I overly optimistic to believe that it could?

[FONT=&quot]~The ramblings of a gay hippie peace-freak[/FONT]

 

[desy]

Don't argue w bible nuts?

 

[CrackRabbit]

You can't fight insanity with reason.

 

[Moonbeam]

it's a race between conscious evolution and extinction. I will see if I can find you a TED video that might help.

 

[werepossum]

Well said, Bradly. It seems to me that if one accepts that the Biblical prohibition against eating shellfish made sense at the time but can now be ignored without imperiling one's soul, then one can accept the same about homosexuality. (Or if not, at least accept that if G-d is displeased, He is able to handle the situation without your help.) Unfortunately it's the human condition to interpret things as we'd like them to be, and while I'd miss my pork and catfish, renouncing homosexuality costs me nothing. Personally I think that insisting on Biblical prohibitions that personally cause us no discomfort imperils our souls, for we are essentially trying to increase our own sanctity at others' cost.

Either way, it's always good to be able to see the issue from the other guy's point, even if you ultimately determine that he's bat shit crazy.

 

[Retro Rob]

Speaking of seeing things from the other person's POV, as a black man, our forefathers were victims of extreme prejudice so I can understand, to a degree, the plight of the gay man...so my comments of gays being an over-protected class with the power to get people fired from their jobs for simply having a difference in opinion, isn't one made from prejudicial ignorance...especially seeing I've been a victim of discrimination before.

I personally cannot understand why they are so sensitive to criticism. If someone told me that they didn't agree with interracial marriage, I can tell you, I'd leave him to his opinion and wouldn't want to exact revenge by asking his employer fire him and make it hard for him to provide for his family.

I understand those remarks aren't always made from a position of hate and prejudice -- some people were simply raised like that way and those sort of feelings are deeply-rooted into their hearts.

I think the best things to do is to find out where these feelings (disagreements with gay marriage, for example) have roots, and instead of 'running the gauntlet' on a person and instantly labeling him a bigot (which will harden his anti-gay resolve), why not ask him why he feels this way?


There is a lot to be learned from one another, if we give each other a chance.​

 

[Moonbeam]

http://www.ted.com/talks/robert_wright_on_optimism.html

Took a while but I found it. Hope you have time to watch.

 

[werepossum]

Speaking of seeing things from the other person's POV, as a black man, our forefathers were victims of extreme prejudice so I can understand, to a degree, the plight of the gay man...so my comments of gays being an over-protected class with the power to get people fired from their jobs for simply having a difference in opinion, isn't one made from prejudicial ignorance...especially seeing I've been a victim of discrimination before.

I personally cannot understand why they are so sensitive to criticism. If someone told me that they didn't agree with interracial marriage, I can tell you, I'd leave him to his opinion and wouldn't want to exact revenge by asking his employer fire him and make it hard for him to provide for his family.

I understand those remarks aren't always made from a position of hate and prejudice -- some people were simply raised like that way and those sort of feelings are deeply-rooted into their hearts.

I think the best things to do is to find out where these feelings (disagreements with gay marriage, for example) have roots, and instead of 'running the gauntlet' on a person and instantly labeling him a bigot (which will harden his anti-gay resolve), why not ask him why he feels this way?


There is a lot to be learned from one another, if we give each other a chance.​

Also well said.

 

[michal1980]

Speaking of seeing things from the other person's POV, as a black man, our forefathers were victims of extreme prejudice so I can understand, to a degree, the plight of the gay man...so my comments of gays being an over-protected class with the power to get people fired from their jobs for simply having a difference in opinion, isn't one made from prejudicial ignorance...especially seeing I've been a victim of discrimination before.

I personally cannot understand why they are so sensitive to criticism. If someone told me that they didn't agree with interracial marriage, I can tell you, I'd leave him to his opinion and wouldn't want to exact revenge by asking his employer fire him and make it hard for him to provide for his family.

I understand those remarks aren't always made from a position of hate and prejudice -- some people were simply raised like that way and those sort of feelings are deeply-rooted into their hearts.

I think the best things to do is to find out where these feelings (disagreements with gay marriage, for example) have roots, and instead of 'running the gauntlet' on a person and instantly labeling him a bigot (which will harden his anti-gay resolve), why not ask him why he feels this way?


There is a lot to be learned from one another, if we give each other a chance.​

well put.

 

[IBMer]

All this up roar of a guy possibly getting fired for a different opinion, yet how many have been fired for being gay?

 

[Zaap]

I think the best things to do is to find out where these feelings (disagreements with gay marriage, for example) have roots, and instead of 'running the gauntlet' on a person and instantly labeling him a bigot (which will harden his anti-gay resolve), why not ask him why he feels this way?

There is a lot to be learned from one another, if we give each other a chance.​

Well said.

I have to say though, it's been my experience that there are a few different things going on that get blurred into one.

May be a generalization, but many gay people I know are not any more thin-skinned than anyone else, and actually don't get up in arms every time some ignorant person makes a bunch of stupid comments. Most have had to put up with far worse their entire lives.

But as with a lot of things, there's a cottage industry of 'outrage-mongers' I guess you could call them, that jump on things, squeak their wheel the loudest, and exploit political correctness (which modern industry is deathly afraid of) to push an agenda.

So the media pay a lot of attention to those types, who then manage to take over an issue and make it as if all gay people feel exactly the same way. (For example, I don't know anyone gay or otherwise who really wanted to go protest at Chick-Fil-a when that whole slew of bullshit got started, but a few angry, noisy people co-opted that and ran with it, and the media elected them the spokesman for all gay people).

The media (and one particular political party) tend to think all minorities of whatever group are hive-minded- all virtually the same identical person just cloned a whole bunch of times, therefore they have their "go-to" representatives that speak for the entire group. If you notice, it's often the same people for 30, 40 years at a time.

So anyway- I personally don't blame anyone who's gay for getting pissed off at hearing more ignorant nonsense spewed at them, but at the same time, I don't believe the majority is as thin-skinned and "hive-minded" about it as the media would have me believe.

And specifically in the case of that Robertson guy, I don't believe his firing was simply a case of A&E caving to a bunch of screaming activists wanting him fired. I work in the entertainment industry and am familiar with contracts that just about anyone has to sign to do certain jobs. (Certainly anything on-camera on a network.) As such, you're a representative of a company, a public figure, and you most certainly can be fired for doing or saying anything publicly that reflects badly on the company and/or insults any portion of the company's audience.

The whole business of TV is based on publicity and attracting revenue through advertising that benefits from that publicity. Advertisers are as PC-afraid as they come; it's a hard enough prospect to get someone to part with millions of dollars on the kind-of iffy prospect that it'll be worth it if enough eyeballs see their ads, leading to enough exposure to increase revenue enough to cover the ad expense. That's a delicate prospect, and then attaching any sort of stigma to it (advertise on this show, and you'll be seen as supporting X agenda that the star publicly announced...) and the delicate balance shifts to "Eh. No thanks."

A guy who works in TV and doesn't have a clue where those millions are really coming from and makes idiotic public comments that will demand retribution in order to keep the peace with advertisers, is just a complete bonehead that deserves to get fired. People can make up a lot of horseshit that it's because all gay people are noisy and thin skinned and get everyone that doesn't approve of them fired, but that's not the real reason behind it.

 

[SheHateMe]

This is why I don't like talking to friends about Christianity. Here is a post from a "friend" of mine from HS.

Darwin EVOLUTION is a lie. There is no observable evidence in a Change of kind. A T-Rex did not become a chicken. Humans did not come from fish gills. And black humans are not from monkeys. A fish is still a fish, humans are still humans... I cannot believe I am about to take this class I'm glad it's online.

This shit made my blood boil.

 

[bradly1101]

Speaking of seeing things from the other person's POV, as a black man, our forefathers were victims of extreme prejudice so I can understand, to a degree, the plight of the gay man...so my comments of gays being an over-protected class with the power to get people fired from their jobs for simply having a difference in opinion, isn't one made from prejudicial ignorance...especially seeing I've been a victim of discrimination before.

I personally cannot understand why they are so sensitive to criticism. If someone told me that they didn't agree with interracial marriage, I can tell you, I'd leave him to his opinion and wouldn't want to exact revenge by asking his employer fire him and make it hard for him to provide for his family.

I understand those remarks aren't always made from a position of hate and prejudice -- some people were simply raised like that way and those sort of feelings are deeply-rooted into their hearts.

I think the best things to do is to find out where these feelings (disagreements with gay marriage, for example) have roots, and instead of 'running the gauntlet' on a person and instantly labeling him a bigot (which will harden his anti-gay resolve), why not ask him why he feels this way?


There is a lot to be learned from one another, if we give each other a chance.​

In this country money buys big, influential megaphones. The gays have big money behind them now.

 

[bradly1101]

The whole business of TV is based on publicity and attracting revenue through advertising that benefits from that publicity.

It's hard to imagine better publicity than all this.

 

[MtnMan]

Don't argue w bible nuts?

You can't fight insanity with reason.

Debating a theist is like trying to play chess with a pigeon — it knocks the pieces over, craps on the board, and flies back to its flock to claim victory.

 

[Zaap]

It's hard to imagine better publicity than all this.

It's cable. No one is buying cable just to watch this stupid show, no matter what dippy thing the guy said. So the audience is built-in based on subscribers. So it's down to ad dollars, which unlike cable subscriptions aren't a guaranteed revenue source as advertisers can say "get lost." In that arena, it's like I said- a really boneheaded move. OF COURSE you're going to get fired if you jeopardize ad revenue.

 

[ch33zw1z]

Debating a theist is like trying to play chess with a pigeon — it knocks the pieces over, craps on the board, and flies back to its flock to claim victory.

 

[Fern]

Well said, Bradly. It seems to me that if one accepts that the Biblical prohibition against eating shellfish made sense at the time but can now be ignored without imperiling one's soul, then one can accept the same about homosexuality. (Or if not, at least accept that if G-d is displeased, He is able to handle the situation without your help.) Unfortunately it's the human condition to interpret things as we'd like them to be, and while I'd miss my pork and catfish, renouncing homosexuality costs me nothing. Personally I think that insisting on Biblical prohibitions that personally cause us no discomfort imperils our souls, for we are essentially trying to increase our own sanctity at others' cost.

Either way, it's always good to be able to see the issue from the other guy's point, even if you ultimately determine that he's bat shit crazy.

The dietary law are for the Jews who still follow the Old Testament.

Christians follow the New Testament, and to my knowledge there are no dietary laws in it.

Fern

 

[Moonbeam]

The dietary law are for the Jews who still follow the Old Testament.

Christians follow the New Testament, and to my knowledge there are no dietary laws in it.

Fern

There are some regarding eating Christ's flesh and drinking his blood, a common way to maintain contact with a Spiritual Master on the Astral plane. Of course, the flesh and blood was His real flesh and blood originally, or so I've heard.

 

[Sonikku]

You can't fight insanity with reason.

That is why you must combat insanity with insanity.

In an insane world the sane man is insane.

 

[ch33zw1z]

There are some regarding eating Christ's flesh and drinking his blood, a common way to maintain contact with a Spiritual Master on the Astral plane. Of course, the flesh and blood was His real flesh and blood originally, or so I've heard.

The last supper, just google it. Jesus had communion, no cannibalism happened, but he started a ritual.

 

[werepossum]

The dietary law are for the Jews who still follow the Old Testament.

Christians follow the New Testament, and to my knowledge there are no dietary laws in it.

Fern

Yet Jesus said ""I come not to break the law, but to complete it."

More to the point, can you really believe the Son of G-d embraced thieves and prostitutes but has a problem with homosexuals? That makes zero sense to me.

 

[K1052]

The dietary law are for the Jews who still follow the Old Testament.

Christians follow the New Testament, and to my knowledge there are no dietary laws in it.

Fern

The overall point I think is that many Christians selectively lift stuff from the OT to support their own cultural belief structure and represent it as the will of God. Even worse these same people try to pass laws that impose that structure on the rest of society against their will.

 

[Matt1970]

Why are Atheists trying to play chess with pigeons?

 

[werepossum]

The overall point I think is that many Christians selectively lift stuff from the OT to support their own cultural belief structure and represent it as the will of God. Even worse these same people try to pass laws that impose that structure on the rest of society against their will.

Exactly. Easy to concentrate on things that don't affect you.

Jesus never preached on the evils of homosexuality, to our knowledge. I think we're all better off concentrating on His message and how our own behavior fits that.

Why are Atheists trying to play chess with pigeons?

I can think of a couple reasons. Perverts!