Originally posted by: Moonbeam
Originally posted by: Ozoned
Originally posted by: Craig234
Originally posted by: Ozoned
Originally posted by: Moonbeam
Do we see that you can tell a bigot, but you can't tell him much?
The bigot is totally blind to his bigotry.
I absolutely agree. I can't believe there are so many people out there that would oppose my right to view marriage as it has always been viewed since its inception in the most primitive form.
That is,,,,the spiritual union between a Man and a Woman. Perhaps, if goverment wasn't involved in regulating marriage, it wouldn't be an issue.
You're honest enough to put
your huge ignorance of the history of the definition of marriage on display, and your inability to ratioanally address homosexuality.
Too bad that honesty in this case is the best that can be said about the negative facts about you.
Huh?????? Show me something different.
You can't show a bigot anything. Please try to understand that in this area you can't see anything.
What you can do is show them that the particular excuse they have chosen to defend their bigotry with is factually inaccurate. However, that has no effect on them; they virtually never change their position in response, but instead abandon the issue as unimportant after all and come up with a new excude for their position. The funny thing is that they themselves don't seem to realize what they are doing or why.
The only thing I know that works is to get them to shift their thinking from the question being 'defend your position', for which they can find 1000 excuses, to the whole different way of looking at the issue, which typically involves recognizing the humanity of the person they are dehumanizing in some way, and when they are dehumanizing the other person because of their own lack of development, getting some payoff for their own self worth from the bigotry, that's next to impossible to do.
It's why we so often see only in the strongest cases, such as when a beloved family member or close friend, in in the target group that bigots can make that change in view.
So, we can show Ozoned how his facts on the history of marriage are wrong, but it's pointless for our time or his, since the response will not be "oh, then he changes his position on gay marriage". It serves *some* purpose for going through the exercise to show my statement about how he won'tchange his position is true, but that's been done so many times with posters, it's pointless to keep repeating it.
And the other thing is, that *it doesn't matter* if he were right - the issue on the right and wrong of gay marriage is not what the historical tradition has been any more than the right and wrong of slavery was what the traditional system had been, and so arguing the facts of the historical definition has the harmful effect of appearing to agree that that's a legitimate issue for deciding gay marriage, instead of the real issue, the immorality of treating people born gay as second-class citizens who are ok to deny equal marital rights.
Are gays similarly adult human beings to straights? Yes. Do they have similar needs for love, relationships, long-term commitments, societal respect? Yes.
Is there any rationals justification for denying them the same rights, as there is with, say, pedophiles? No. Therefore, it is *immoral harm* to discriminate.
But unfortunately, nothing compels Ozoned and others to act morally, to not be cretins who casually inflict harm on others as the tyrany of the bigoted majority.