So Michael Sam Is Gay, Who Cares? Can He Rush The QB?

[primetime]

What if people who dislike gays (or the gay lifestyle) have such an intense cognitive disagreement with the concept, that it makes them really truly uncomfortable? And the fact that everyone else translates that as bigotry only makes it worse for them, because it intensifies their cognitive dissonance? In such a scenario, is it fair to keep forcing such people to change their mindset, if they're not directly hurting anyone due to their beliefs?

This is one of those hypotheticals that sounds great until you get to the end. People who are hateful are probably contributing - even in some small way - to hurting someone due to their beliefs.

 

[primetime]

They can get arrested for disorderly conduct, disturbing the peace, or inciting.

The KKK can organize as long as it doesn't engage in hate crime or disorderly conduct (presumably).

They're awful, horrible people who any right-minded individual should object to, but that doesn't mean the KKK should be denied the right to assemble, either, as long as they don't commit any crimes.

But we also shouldn't turn around and say "well the KKK can assemble, so they must have some good ideas." It's possible to reject legal infringement on guaranteed rights while simultaneously rejecting the substantive content of a message as horrific and horrible. These aren't clashing concepts; in fact they work pretty well together.

However, the father with the gay child thing is different. Some jurists would see coercive treatment of a child as abuse, so the beliefs can in fact lead one to induce harm.

 

[PP2]

What if people who dislike gays (or the gay lifestyle) have such an intense cognitive disagreement with the concept, that it makes them really truly uncomfortable? And the fact that everyone else translates that as bigotry only makes it worse for them, because it intensifies their cognitive dissonance?

People have the right to think or feel the way they want to- but that in itself doesn't give them the right to impose their thinking or feeling on another person.

Just because someone who thinks s/he thinks it's Christian to think that all gays are destined to end up in a flaming hell doesn't give them the right to impose that point of view on people who do not agree with that.

 

[Ring 6]

An illustration of the absurdity of the human condition. If someone is intolerant of something, we castigate him/her. But in doing so, we're being intolerant of them. So intolerance is not acceptable, but intolerance of intolerance is? If so, why?

Did you really ask that question? If tolerance is the goal, then bigotry is not acceptable.
Tolerance is designed to protect the innocent from being harmed by bigotry and hatred, not to protect the rights of the bigot to harm them.

What if people who dislike gays (or the gay lifestyle) have such an intense cognitive disagreement with the concept, that it makes them really truly uncomfortable? And the fact that everyone else translates that as bigotry only makes it worse for them, because it intensifies their cognitive dissonance? In such a scenario, is it fair to keep forcing such people to change their mindset, if they're not directly hurting anyone due to their beliefs?

No one is telling them what to believe, we are telling them to keep it to themselves because it is hurtful.
If I think gay people are immoral, disgusting and will rot in hell, I can think that, but once I say it I am infringing on the rights of the gay person.
The right to live your life free of harassment is not the same as the right to say what you think. It goes back to the concept that free speech extends up until you yell fire in a crowded theatre.

Not taking a stand on the position of any poster in this thread. I'm just saying what's "right" is rarely ever that easily discernible, no matter how convinced you might be that you're right (so is the other fella, and that after all is the root of all conflict, isn't it?).

What's right is recognizing people as human beings who have a right to live their life without harassment.

So why am I pointing this out? Because, A) I get a kick out of acknowledging how chaotic real life really is, and B) realization of that fact should lend oneself to be a little more humble concerning what you think is really truly right, damn whatever someone else may think.

It is not a matter of whether gay is right or wrong, its a matter of those people having a right to live their life without being discriminated against, or treated with hatred and prejudice because of who they are.
If this entire discussion took place 60 years ago, and was about interracial dating and marriage, it would have gone similarly. Hopefully today, most people realize how wrong that is.

 

[Ring 6]

This is one of those hypotheticals that sounds great until you get to the end. People who are hateful are probably contributing - even in some small way - to hurting someone due to their beliefs.

Exactly. I don't think anyone cares what someone believes, but they care when those beliefs are voiced if they are insensitive.
In this particular topic, there are volumes of examples of young gay people having severe issues with acceptance, bullying and criticism.
I mean its one thing to tell someone they are warped because they are a Jet fan, but something entirely different to attack their identity.

 

[kennyb]

People have the right to think or feel the way they want to- but that in itself doesn't give them the right to impose their thinking or feeling on another person.

Just because someone who thinks s/he thinks it's Christian to think that all gays are destined to end up in a flaming hell doesn't give them the right to impose that point of view on people who do not agree with that.

Sure it does. Who is to say it doesn't? You? You define morality now?

THis whole thread is a bunch of drama queens standing on soapboxes preaching about how tolerant they are. Laughable.

 

[Ring 6]

Sure it does. Who is to say it doesn't? You? You define morality now?

THis whole thread is a bunch of drama queens standing on soapboxes preaching about how tolerant they are. Laughable.

So if I am a racist and believe that all other races are inferior and disgusting, its OK for me to walk up to a minority and explain to them that they are inferior and should be eliminated from the population?
You have no problem with that? Anyone who doesn't like me doing that would be a drama queen?

 

[fnordcircle]

Any reason you can't ignore his post if you disagree with it? Bigot!

If my son ever came home and said he wanted to ignore a thread I'd slap him in the face, it's not natural.

 

[PP2]

Sure it does. Who is to say it doesn't? You? You define morality now?

THis whole thread is a bunch of drama queens standing on soapboxes preaching about how tolerant they are. Laughable.

Then why are you reading the thread instead of putting it on ignore?

Is it because you have a perverse attraction to drama queens?

 

[primetime]

Fnordcircle can you help me understand what the gay lifestyle is

 

[kennyb]

Then why are you reading the thread instead of putting it on ignore?

Is it because you have a perverse attraction to drama queens?

I like ridiculing self righteous people.

 

[PP2]

Fnordcircle can you help me understand what the gay lifestyle is

Be careful, you might catch the gay disease for which the only cure seems to be "bouncing your eyes away from selective targets" (if I got that right). Hopefully you don't strain your eye muscles.

 

[PP2]

I like ridiculing self righteous people.

By all means. Nobody's stopping you.

 

[Mountain_Commando]

Did you really ask that question? If tolerance is the goal, then bigotry is not acceptable.
Tolerance is designed to protect the innocent from being harmed by bigotry and hatred, not to protect the rights of the bigot to harm them.

Understood. But I'd said previously "is it fair to keep forcing such people to change their mindset, if they're not directly hurting anyone due to their beliefs?"

So my question can be rephrased as such: as long as an anti-gay person isn't breaking the law, or indirectly causing harm to gays, is it then OK for gay right proponents to still be intolerant of such people? And I'm not saying that's the case with you, or anyone on this thread, I'm just asking a conceptual question.

No one is telling them what to believe, we are telling them to keep it to themselves because it is hurtful.
If I think gay people are immoral, disgusting and will rot in hell, I can think that, but once I say it I am infringing on the rights of the gay person.
The right to live your life free of harassment is not the same as the right to say what you think. It goes back to the concept that free speech extends up until you yell fire in a crowded theatre.

What's right is recognizing people as human beings who have a right to live their life without harassment.

It is not a matter of whether gay is right or wrong, its a matter of those people having a right to live their life without being discriminated against, or treated with hatred and prejudice because of who they are.
If this entire discussion took place 60 years ago, and was about interracial dating and marriage, it would have gone similarly. Hopefully today, most people realize how wrong that is.

We agree here.

 

[mgteich]

I agree that saying that gay people are immoral and will rot in hell is hurtful (and not helpful in any away).

I do not agree that this violates the rights of the gay person.

I'm sure that many folks think and say the same things about jets fans. Seriously, violating rights is much different than simply being hurtful and being a jerk.

No one is telling them what to believe, we are telling them to keep it to themselves because it is hurtful.

If I think gay people are immoral, disgusting and will rot in hell, I can think that, but once I say it I am infringing on the rights of the gay person.

 

[Mountain_Commando]

People have the right to think or feel the way they want to- but that in itself doesn't give them the right to impose their thinking or feeling on another person.

Just because someone who thinks s/he thinks it's Christian to think that all gays are destined to end up in a flaming hell doesn't give them the right to impose that point of view on people who do not agree with that.

Agreed, but...by the same token, do you have a right to impose acceptance of your lifestyle on those who disagree with it, so long as they aren't breaking the law or directly harming you physically/economically?

And here, I already know the logical counterpoint is that passive bigotry is still bigotry. But at what point do you draw the line between disagreement and bigotry?

I'll take NEPAT160's example. By all accounts, I don't believe he has broken any laws. Now his personal POVs may make him an unpleasant person to gays and anyone who doesn't like disagreeable people. Is it then right to call him a bigot (again, as long as he's not breaking the law or harming anyone directly), on the basis that he's an intolerant person, while you yourself are intolerant of his in-acceptance of your POV?

One hypothetical that was discussed was what would his reaction be if his son told him he was gay. Based on his replies, it sounded like he would still try to love his son as best he can, without accepting his son's lifestyle. Now certainly, that conditional acceptance would cause pain to his son. And the whole situation would be much happier off if NEPAT160 just changed his mindset and 'got ok' with the gay lifestyle. But lets say's he's unable to change himself to that extent since his beliefs are so strong. The compromise he's made is that he's still loving his son (perhaps to a slightly lesser degree?). Now, does the fact that he came halfway but not fully towards accepting a gay person's lifestyle still make him a bigot, and hence a legitimate target for scorn? And I'm not accusing you of this. But do you see that if you answer 'yes' to that question, you yourself are as intolerant his what you claim NEPAT160 to be?

You can strong-arm someone into doing the right thing as defined by society (by way of law enforcement), but you cannot strong-arm anyone into liking or agreeing with you by painting them as intolerant, without implicating yourself equally (again, I'm not accusing you personally, I'm just making the point).

 

[PP2]

Agreed, but...by the same token, do you have a right to impose acceptance of your lifestyle on those who disagree with it, so long as they aren't breaking the law or directly harming you physically/economically?

I do not have any right to impose my lifestyle on someone who disagrees with it. That is why I have objected to the idea that you can still love a gay son but disagree with what is natural to him. That, in my opinion, is conditional love. Maybe it's just me, but I don't see how you can really love a person and not accept them just the way they are, since you are telling them "I love you but..."

Don't you think a gay son who's been told his actions are not natural, would then feel shame or conflicted? What if he tells you that what he feels is natural and that he cannot change it? Would you respect that and thereby love him, or would you deem it more important to change him just to get in line with popular precepts?

I'll take NEPAT160's example. By all accounts, I don't believe he has broken any laws. Now his personal POVs may make him an unpleasant person to gays and anyone who doesn't like disagreeable people. Is it then right to call him a bigot (again, as long as he's not breaking the law or harming anyone directly), on the basis that he's an intolerant person, while you yourself are intolerant of his in-acceptance of your POV?

Bigotry is the intolerance that another person's opinion may be different than yours, yet be equally as valid. NEPAT160 has every right to his own opinion and belief and to express them in a non-imposing way. However, he has no right to tell another person that their way of life is wrong. That is what I am intolerant of, and will speak out against.

One hypothetical that was discussed was what would his reaction be if his son told him he was gay. Based on his replies, it sounded like he would still try to love his son as best he can, without accepting his son's lifestyle. Now certainly, that conditional acceptance would cause pain to his son. And the whole situation would be much happier off if NEPAT160 just changed his mindset and 'got ok' with the gay lifestyle. But lets say's he's unable to change himself to that extent since his beliefs are so strong. The compromise he's made is that he's still loving his son (perhaps to a slightly lesser degree?). Now, does the fact that he came halfway but not fully towards accepting a gay person's lifestyle still make him a bigot, and hence a legitimate target for scorn? And I'm not accusing you of this. But do you see that if you answer 'yes' to that question, you yourself are as intolerant his what you claim NEPAT160 to be?

It is true that makes him less of a bigot but I believe that is still not enough. Don't you think that the concept of unconditional love is more important and should surpass any idea or doctrine?

It is fair to say that I am intolerant of his belief that he can impose his views on another person's life, but not of his right to express them. I am not seeking to convert him, and I don't think I've conveyed that impression.

You can strong-arm someone into doing the right thing as defined by society (by way of law enforcement), but you cannot strong-arm anyone into liking or agreeing with you by painting them as intolerant, without implicating yourself equally (again, I'm not accusing you personally, I'm just making the point).

I don't believe I am asking anyone (NEPAT160 for example) to agree with me as much as I am pointing out the flaws in their stance and pointing out that it is actually bigotry.

 

[Kontradiction]

Just came back into this thread for the first time since last week...

 

[Ring 6]

Understood. But I'd said previously "is it fair to keep forcing such people to change their mindset, if they're not directly hurting anyone due to their beliefs?"

So my question can be rephrased as such: as long as an anti-gay person isn't breaking the law, or indirectly causing harm to gays, is it then OK for gay right proponents to still be intolerant of such people? And I'm not saying that's the case with you, or anyone on this thread, I'm just asking a conceptual question.



We agree here.

So if I am anti-African American or AntiAsian, and speak those beliefs without hesitation then anyone who objects would be intolerant?
What if I was sexist and went around criticizing women?

I think you are mixing up the distinction between attacking what someone is, and not accepting someone acting in a hurtful manner toward someone just because of what they are.

If I walk down that street throwing racial epiteths at everyone I meet, and you walk behind me telling me I am wrong and should stop, do you really find those equal behaviors?

I will put it another way. Calling a gay person immoral is just as wrong as saying a black person isn't smart enough to get a real job.
You cannot tell me you would defend the person who spews the opinion that black people are stupid, should not be allowed in college, and should never get a job over the white person who is genetically more qualified.
Would you seriously be calling the person who speaks out against that person intolerant?

 

[Ring 6]

Agreed, but...by the same token, do you have a right to impose acceptance of your lifestyle on those who disagree with it, so long as they aren't breaking the law or directly harming you physically/economically?

Gay people are not 'imposing their life' on people who disagree with it. They are living their life. Others are imposing their ideals to tell them they are wrong.