Here's what I don't get:

[cali]

If someone supports gay adoption, protections for GLBT folks in the workplace and in housing, civil unions with all the benefits of marriage on both the state and federal level, but doesn't support marriage equality itself, why cast that person as the enemy? What's the point of labeling them a bigot? Sure, they're wrong, and yes it probably stems from a bias or conditioning, but they support 95% of what we need to see happen. And what's more, these folks can be educated. I've seen it happen.

[baldguy]

1. Because separate-but-equal is immoral and illegal.

[Umbram]

15. So, if someone is one step away from being right...

they are the enemy, not an imperfect ally in need of education?

The OP asked why they should be enemies, not how they were wrong.

[baldguy]

52. So, being a bigot is OK just as long as they're "soft" about it and not confrontational?

[Yes We Did]

54. I don't think that is the point.

The point is Obama is going to get the GLBT community closer to equality than any other president has. I understand that 95% is NOT 100%... but it's a hell of a lot better than 0%.

*and no... I'm not saying you should have to settle for 95%... I'm just saying you have to start somewhere.

[Umbram]

60. Well, if you don't want to address my point honestly, that's OK.

I'm sure you can stretch anything I say to mean anything - it's not very hard.

But, no - it is never OK to be a bigot, AGAIN, the point of the thread is HOW DO WE USE/TREAT THESE TYPES OF INDIVIDUALS.

Thanks.

[marimour]

76. a person who supports all of that is NOT a bigot.

A true bigot wouldn't be anything like Obama.

[baldguy]

81. Its OK to invite them to dinner

But you wouldn't want your child to be in a relationship with one.

[ColbertWatcher]

85. Exactly.

Why can't the broad be happy she is getting beaten 5% less than she was last week?

What I don't understand is what it is about "separate, but equal" that people are okay with? Or, are they okay with 5% of it?

You know, the good 5%.

I understand the whole "they can learn" optimism, but that last bastion of bigotry is still bigotry and anyone who harbors that hate should realize it's not acceptable.

If they're really our friends, we should help them by not tolerating it.

[noamnety]

2. The point is to make it very clear

that separate but equal (just not as equal as others) is discrimination.

The point is to NOT allow them to cast themselves as being something other than bigots when they advocate for gays to have LESS rights than they themselves currently enjoy.

The point is to not allow them to whitewash their bigotry in polite little euphemisms. The point is to call them out on their bigotry and let them know it will not stand unchallenged.

----------------
What is the point of pretending that discrimination is NOT discrimination?

[Solon]

11. You hit the nail on the head with your last sentence. n/t

[cali]

23. good luck with that.

yeah, attack people who stand up for 95% of rights we want to see the GLBT community have. That'll help. Er, no it won't. I've dealt with wonderful people who were just as I described in the OP, and they were wrong, but they weren't bigots and they came to understand why they were wrong. One of the people I love most in the world fell into that catagory. I don't know anyone more loving and more wonderful than Jude. And calling her a bigot instead of talking to her about why separate but equal can never be equal would have simply been counterproductive.

[ColbertWatcher]

86. Well said. n/t

[rug]

3. Why not simply support marriage equality?

[Umbram]

7. Because they are wrong...

The OP was not about whether their stance was correct, it was about how they should be treated/used.

[cali]

17. but that's the point. you can advocate marriage equality to people

who are disposed to support most civil rights for the GLBT community. And you can change their minds. I know this personally. One of my dearest friend didn't support marriage equality up until a couple of years ago. She does now, but it didn't come about by simply telling her she was a bigot. People are more complex than that. And yes, there are degrees of bigotry or bias. Someone who supports all GLBT rights short of marriage has a lot more in common with those who support marriage equality than with someone like Robertson or Warren.

[noamnety]

35. The reverse is also true.

Some people don't challenge their own thinking until they are called out in very blunt terms for their racism or sexism or other types of privilege.

That Kramer asshat, he learned to STFU with the racial slurs and examine what was in hisbadself instead of defending his actions because people called him out for what he was and made him face it.

I don't have an obligation to make it comfortable for someone else to be a bigot. They SHOULD be made uncomfortable. That TOO can be a catalyst for change, even if the initial reaction is defensiveness. I've had people email or message me half a year after I wrote them off to say shit, you were right, you made me think, thanks for that - even if I was fairly brutal to them and called them out for acting in a sexist way.

And conversely, the most challenged I ever was on an issue was by the person who called me out in very blunt ugly terms. I cannot begin to tell you how pissed off I was, lost a lot of sleep over it. When she came to this area for a conference the following year, I offered up my house to her and she stayed here.

[cali]

39. I disagree really strongly.

First of all, we're not talking about people who run around spewing homophobic slurs. That's completely unrelated. Calling someone who supports every single issue important to the GLBT community but the word marriage, a bigot is not only likely wrong and missing the boat, it's counterproductive. Human nature being what it is, people simply get their backs up. There are really good people out there who need dialogue, not harsh judgmental words.

[noamnety]

41. Benevolent bigots

are still bigots if they support discrimination. Even if they "don't spew homophobic slurs" while discriminating. Even if they are like the smiling bigot that Obama likes to share the stage with. Even if they serve us donuts.

"Dialog" in the form of "we both have valid points when it comes to not granting equal rights" is only constructive up to a certain point. Beyond that, people do need to be called out if they are bullshitting us.

Here's a thought - Quit defending people's bigotry by saying they are only acting like a bigot 5% of the time.

[cali]

42. we disagree. It's that simple.

Sorry, if someone supports literally everything but the word marriage, they're nothing like Warren. They're 95% with those of us who want full marriage equality. You can write those people off as bigots. I won't. I know too many of them. Vermont is a great place to see how public opinion has changed.The majority of people here now support marriage equality. 9 years ago when civil unions became the law, a bare majority supported CUs and a large majority were opposed to marriage equality. What changed their minds? It sure as hell wasn't people like you.

I think your sanctimonious approach is counterproductive.

[Horselover Fat]

77. How long are you willing to wait for it?

Will you wait on your Civil Rights until you get exactly what you want?

Or might you go ahead and get the equal rights now even if they are called by a different name?

A Rose by any other name is still a Rose.

[firedupdem]

4. I was listening to a radio program the other day and a guy was

saying it took his 14 yr old daughter to open his eyes. He was for everything except the word "marriage". He realized how irrational his thinking was when his daughter just said, Dad, it's a word. How does it affect you?

Education is key. People hold onto what they are taught. If they come out of the cocoon they've placed themselves in and talk to people they will realize this big fight they are putting up against a word is not really smart.

[tbyg52]

5. If they don't support the exact same rights for everyone,

there is a "but" lurking in there that worries me.

[ProSense]

6. Every Democratic leader is a "bigot" and "the enemy."

They're wrong, but why pretend that they're all not "the enemy"? A double standard is hypocrisy.

[truedelphi]

8. In France, the State has Civil Unions that allow for people to

Have a "state" version of marriage. These Unions protect those involved with the full protections that were once labelled the protections of marriage.

Then marriage can be up to the individuals, who can choose the Church of their liking to perform the marriage ceremony.

Should this happen here: One thing I like about this idea is that, in most cases, no longer will there be LGBT people supporting anti-gay religious establishments. So there would be further incentive for people who are gay (Also those of us who support LBGT) and who attend Church to seek out a denomination that recognizes them.

Eventually the religious world will have acceptance of the LGBT thrust on them - for as time goes on, those religious entities that are accepting will have increased numbers, while those that are intolerant willhave their numbers dwindle.

PLEASE NOTE: were this to happen, then no one, let me repeat that, no one would have a marriage license offered by the State. Everyone would have a Civil Union license instead. And a marriage license would be offered up only by the priest, minister, rabbi, or witch (I happen to have been married by a witch) of the couple's choosing.

[Solon]

9. France is a far more secular society than the United States, in addition...

the only thing I can think of that more unpopular(and more unlikely) to pass than Same Sex Marriage would be abandoning the word within a legal context entirely in favor of Civil Unions for everybody. Look, its nice that you think of this as a "solution", but frankly, its a form of mental masturbation, and doesn't accomplish much.

[truedelphi]

16. I'm not sure that France is more secular, at least not in terms of its foundation

We are the nation that says that State and Church should be separate.

I think that the real problem is that compared to us, France has more educated people, and a more seriously intellectual quality to it than our nation. They don't have politicians packing up in the middle of the night because of an affair or two. What you do with your sexuality is your business, in France a hundred times more so than here.

However, I do think that it may be right that it would be tough for the minority populace of more restrictive Churches to accept the abandonment of the word "marriage" at the State level. But so what? The State is supposed to be separate from the Church.

[Solon]

20. I'm not talking about a minority, but the MAJORITY of this country...

Marriage, as an institution, isn't strictly a religious rite, but a civil contract as well. In addition, a lot of people in this country have, you could call it, sentimental attachment to the word marriage, even those who aren't religious. Whenever I decide to get married, it will most likely be by a Justice of the Peace, but I'll still be MARRIED.

[Umbram]

10. Here is how to deal with such people:

If you meet one in real life (or already know them) you have a conversation whereby you try to understand the other person's position and educate them.

If you meet them online you tell them they are a bigoted nazi and put them on ignore.

:sarcasm:

[leftstreet]

12. I don't get why Obama invited a wedge issue to the inauguration

The whole country was ready to move beyond wedge issue politics.

How retro.

[cali]

18. This isn't about inviting Warren to the inauguration

which I agree was a travesty and wrong on virtually every level. This is about real life and how to interact with people who agree with us on 95%.

[leftstreet]

22. How were the fundie bigots getting along with the GLBT community a year ago?

This is all bullshit.

Most people don't care if gay people want to marry.

Divide and conquer smoke and mirror politics as usual. Here's your wedge issue, now don't talk about single payer healthcare, wages, public transportation, the class war, the oil and drugs wars.

WOOT! Welcome to Change.

[cali]

27. again, this isn't about the fundy bigots. It's about many, many people

who are almost there, supporting everything but the word marriage. And no, most people in this country don't support marriage equality. Please follow along. Please note that state after state has defined marriage as between a man and a woman. And although this is a wedge issue, it's also about vitally important civil rights.

[leftstreet]

32. States are defining marriage, people aren't. No one gives a shit.

You must not know many ordinary people. You know, the ones who have the power to vote, but stop voting because they're tired of bullshit non-economic wedge issues.

You surely understand how wedge issues are used on ballots to draw out and/or suppress a specific voting demographic.

Please follow along.

[cali]

37. you have any evidence whatsoever for your claims that people

stop voting because of "bullshit no-economic wedge issues"?

And no, I don't know many people who don't vote. However, I know plenty of ordinary working people. I live in a poor rural community and most folks do vote here.

[leftstreet]

38. Yeah. McCain/Palin 2008

FAIL

Hard as Sarah tried to ignite the racist, homophobic, nutjob vote - it didn't work.

[cali]

43. bwahahaha. sorry, that's not evidence.

Not even close.

[leftstreet]

46. Let's wait and see if the Repubs take the midterms on economic issues

Since it looks as if the wedge issues will be taken, we'll have to see how badly they want back in.

If the Repubs run on something like single payer healthcare, as a "fiscally conservative" issue,
I decree you owe me a beer!

:toast:

}(

[sandnsea]

13. If I could get 95% of what I need

at any given moment, I'd take it in a second and worry about the other 5% later. I'm glad many more people are like that than the ones who would even move the goal posts in order to have something to protest against.

[Starbucks Anarchist]

14. Those are the easily converted.

But the Warren types don't fall into this category.

[cali]

19. Exactly.

And I'm not talking about the Warren types in the OP. I believe there are lots and lots of people who can be educated and persuaded- but you don't get there by telling them they're bigots and storming off.

[HamdenRice]

21. "but doesn't support marriage equality itself" - cali, it's not even that!

Even if you support marriage equality and all those other issues, if you are not sufficiently outraged at the Warren invitation that you don't want to join efforts by certain DUers to attack the Democratic Party, then you are attacked as an enemy. Even if you support marriage equality and all those other issues, but think that Obama might have a strategic trick up his sleeve with the Warren prayer, you are attacked as an enemy.

Right now, the issue isn't gay marriage; it's outrage about some of us not being sufficiently outraged at the insufficient amount of outrage at Obama.

I think the bottom line is that these people are not actually real Democrats, or are incredibly immature.

[Bluebear]

24. 'I think the bottom line is that these people are not actually real Democrats'

Oh yes, that must be it.

[HamdenRice]

26. ..

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=8034971&mesg_id=8035054

[Bluebear]

28. No, I don't realize that "some DU GLBT" people have set up any such websites

What is this anti-Democratic website?

[HamdenRice]

30. one that ...

actively demands that Democratic Underground members withdraw contributions of money and volunteer manpower from the Democratic Party.

[HamdenRice]

29. "or are incredibly immature."

Take yer pick!

[Creideiki]

33. My pick? "False dilemma"

"The informal fallacy of false dilemma (also called false dichotomy, the either-or fallacy) involves a situation in which only two alternatives are considered, when in fact there are other options. Closely related are failing to consider a range of options and the tendency to think in extremes, called black-and-white thinking. Strictly speaking, the prefix "di" in "dilemma" means "two". When a list of more than two choices are offered, but there are other choices not mentioned, then the fallacy is called the fallacy of false choice."

[Creideiki]

31. Poor Hamdenrice. Falling prey to the self-sealing fallacy

"No true Scotsman, or the self-sealing fallacy, is an ad hoc style fallacy of equivocation and question begging. It was advanced by philosopher Antony Flew in his 1975 book Thinking About Thinking – or do I sincerely want to be right?."

[HamdenRice]

34. You post makes zero sense.

Perhaps you would like to clarify, because your attempt at critical logic failed miserably.

[Creideiki]

36. Please

Find your high school math and English teachers and ask them why they didn't teach you the basics of rhetorics and logic.

Or if they did, then look inside and decide why you don't heed their lessons.

[Prism]

25. Some people are puppy-kickers

That's the best analogy I can draw. There are some people who simply don't channel anger very well.

It'd be like coming home from work, furious at being passed over for a well-deserved promotion, and taking it out on the dog. Sure, the anger is 100% justified, and most people will sympathize and empathize with it, but once you kick that puppy, "But I'm angry for a really good reason!" no longer works as justification or excuse.

There's been a lot of puppy-kicking going on lately. The anger is perfectly justified, but the targeting is just god awful.

Hopefully, the new president and congress will introduce some pro-gay legislation sooner rather than later so we have some solid channels for that energy.

[JuniperLea]

40. There are still people who think interracial marriage is morally wrong...

Key word: think. Sometimes people adopt what they were raised with, and have a hard time breaking from the mold... the conditioning of which you speak.

Yes, the thoughts can be changed, but not by railing against people and calling them names. If anything, that generally causes them to dig in their heels and thank you for proving their point. Taking the high road and being the better person in the situation shouldn't be deemed passé.

I'm concerned that some people think we have the right to force others to think something different than they do currently, that we should be able to punish people for what they hold in their minds, regardless of their actions.

"Be kinder than necessary, for everyone you meet is fighting some kind of battle." - Author Unknown

Yes, people can be educated, no question. I fail to see how heaping hate upon ignorance is going to help anything.

[cali]

45. Well you said it a lot more eloquently than I did.

Thanks, J.

[JuniperLea]

47. There's a first for everything...

You're welcome, c.

[Veruca Salt]

44. I agree with you 100% cali,

My mom is one of these such people and I don't consider her the enemy. She just looks at the word 'marriage' in a religious light and I'm working on fixing that. There are the fundamentalist's that will not or ever change (for the most part). Those are not the ones we're after, it's the one's who are almost there and need some guidance in the right direction.

I'll also admit that I felt wronged, hurt and very much let down when she told me of her position as she was always so outspoken about gay rights. I thought she was with me 100% of the way and it was a shock to find out there was this one caveat.

For full disclosure though, I did call her a bigot and brought up the 'separate but equal' issue. I haven't since called her a bigot again, but I know it got her thinking if our current conversations on the issue are any indication. And it is very much so a conditioning that she grew up with.

[rusty fender]

48. The reason you don't get it is

that you are trying convince people who are treated like second-class citizens that being treated that way isn't really so bad; you are trying to get them to accept and like what they've got because it could be even worse. Your argument is like telling blacks, in the '50s, that the back of the bus ain't so bad; that they should just be grateful that whites are letting them on the bus.

[cali]

55. uh, no. not even close. I'm fully for marriage equality,

I think it absolutely is bad that people are denied full civil rights and I sure as fuck am not trying to convince anyone that being denied their rights isn't so bad. And the only way to interpret what I've said that way is either sheer malice of dogged stupidity. I'm sick of both.

My argument is simple, einstein: When you have people who are 95% or more on board, talking respectfully with them about why the word marriage is vital for full equal rights, is more effective than running around like a fucking asshole alienating them by telling them they're nothing but vile bigots.

Oh, and try to actually use a brain cell or two, dearie.

[Neshanic]

49. Really? You have seen people educated? In camps like?

[cali]

56. No, dear. At my kitchen table. At their kitchen tables.

could your comment have been any more inane? I'll answer that: Not if you tried.

[LuckyTheDog]

50. Here is the devil's advocate position -- and why it is crap

Keep in mind that I think this is BULLSHIT because, at the end of the day, we have to just accept that gays are part of society, that they are normal and that their unions are as valid as any other. But here is what I hear from people who don't support gay marriage:

They say that every man has a right to marry a woman and that every woman has a right to marry a man. No man or woman -- gay or straight -- has the right to marry within his/her gender. Because this right is the "same for everybody" (meaning that you can't say that a man can't marry outside his race, for example), then, according to this "logic," the rights are equal for gays and straights. To some people, THAT is "marriage equality."

Of course, the problem with that is: Why even have a rule about who can marry whom? Forbidding any two adults from marrying -- for any reason -- is a value judgment. Where rules are established, there should be a good reason for them. For example, society might rightfully assert good reasons to forbid brother/sister unions. Same is true for creating a minimum age for marriage.

But I cannot, for the life of me, figure out a societal interest in forbidding gay couples -- who are GOING to be together whether anyone likes it or not -- from "making it legal." It is mean-spirited, unnecessary and accomplishes nothing in terms of positive impact on society.

Another argument I hear is that straight men or women will get married to each other just to get health insurance for one or the other of the "couple." And to that I reply: "so what"? Nothing now forbids any man or woman from entering into a sham marriage for the same reason.

One by one, all of the arguments against gay marriage can be shot down.

[truedelphi]

62. But here's the big problem-o

Many of the people who are unequivocally against two people of the same sex marrying are also against the idea that the earth could be more than 6500 years old.

And they are out buying coloring books for their kids, in which the Baby Jesus is spirited away to Egypt on the backs of dinosaurs.

How can anyone reason with them on any issues?

This is one of the reasons I think it an abomination that Obama has Warren coming and speaking.

Obama is offering sanctions and approval to the loony tunes out there. And if that "compromise" would help nudge them over into the world of rationality, I'd be all for it. But that "compromise" will only help instill the notion that the Fundamentalist viewpoint is being advanced by God himself, who is somehow reaching inside the heart of ol' Muslim boy Obama and furthering the True People's cause.

[Recursion]

72. To take the devil's advocacy further...

Of course, the problem with that is: Why even have a rule about who can marry whom? Forbidding any two adults from marrying -- for any reason -- is a value judgment. Where rules are established, there should be a good reason for them. For example, society might rightfully assert good reasons to forbid brother/sister unions. Same is true for creating a minimum age for marriage.

Why did you limit it to "two" people?

[LuckyTheDog]

88. I think it is reasonable...

... for our society to decide that the problems caused by allowing plural marriage are not worth any potential benefits (if any) that could come from it.

[EFerrari]

51. Because discrimination is discrimination.

[cali]

57. if you can't see the difference between someone who demonizes

GLBT folks and someone who supports everything but the word marriage, well, I pity you.

[Two Americas]

87. an old argument

"The only thing I object to..." and "don't get me wrong I agree with you BUT..." are ever-evolving chameleon arguments, rear guard actions as people take up different positions on the retreat when their previous positions become untenable and unpopular.

In the 1850s, people said "don't get me wrong, I think slavery is bad, but I don't agree with Abolition. If we work gradually to give the slaves all of the benefits of free people, why do we have to argue over that word 'Abolition?'"

When Emancipation became inevitable, the argument became "don't get me wrong, I agree with ending slavery, I just don't think the former slaves should be able to vote."

The arguments continued to evolve for over a hundred years, and the history and lineage of those arguments is a seamless continuum. Inter-racial marriage became an objection, and then integration, and then Affirmative Action. At each stage, the reactionary arguments seem "reasonable" and "moderate," seem like a good safe compromise in "the middle."

[IsItJustMe]

53. Because some folks like to live in the world of black and white and never see the gray, which is

reality. This country is beset by a bumper sticker mentality where everything is either right or wrong and/or good or bad.

It's all about with us or against us. It's all about pigeon holing someone with a label. And once a person is labeled, then a person can ignore them, consider them an enemy, hate them, dehumanize them and hurt them.

We take complex subjects and make them into two dimensional figures. The fact of the matter is, no human alive fits into these nice little neat boxes and the extra dimension (third dimension which is the most important dimension) that everyone forgets to look at in human nature is depth. We all have the possibility and opportunity to grow and expand our horizons.

[rasputin1952]

58. Human Rights, are Human Rights...

however, all Rights are gained incrementally, something many people fail to comprehend.

From the inception of this nation, many individuals and groups were denied what we consider basic Human Rights. It took many years, and is some instances bloody conflicts to gain even Basic Rights of citizenship for far too many, and it took far too long. From the inception of this nation, until 1965, American blacks had one hell of a time, even 100 years after the Civil War, in gaining anything remotely akin to Human Rights. The changes came incrementally, (I don't think it should have been this way, but history cannot be denied).

The "all or nothing" individuals fail to see this; sadly, they will go w/"nothing" than realizing a step forward is a step forward. Nothing like standing still while others are advancing.

Civil Unions, fine for today, then continue the fight for acceptance in full "marriage" rights. I use quotes for marriage because it has religious aspects, as opposed to secular aspects. There will always be people of religion, regardless of the religion, that will be opposed to Gay Marriage, that's just the way it is. All of the complaining in the world will not change some people...discussion and education will.

In any case, while as a straight male, I support Gay Marriage, and full Human Rights for everyone, I also know what the reality is, it will come incrementally. Unfortunately, the "all or nothing right now" aspect, will most likely wind up w/"nothing" for the foreseeable future. It should be said that education is a two-way street.

[firedupdem]

63. Great! Thank You! n/t

[Lyric]

59. Because they ARE an enemy.

Seriously, cali. If we bow under to appeasements and concessions, that bolsters and strengthens the argument that there is something "wrong" with us.

I can see the Hannity/Limbaugh now: "I always knew it was really about the money. They didn't care about equality, not really. Even THEY know they aren't really equal. That's why they 'settled out of court,' so to speak. As soon as someone offered them a chance to cash in on the benefits without the name, they took it and ran with it. It just goes to prove what we've been saying all along: even the GAYS know that 'gay marriage' is a bunch of malarkey. They've conceded the victory; now it's up to Real America to take back the ground they gained until we are once again fully in compliance with God's laws."

No thanks. I want equality; I don't want to "settle of of court." If someone is offering me appeasement and demanding concessions, then they are no friend of mine.

[cali]

71. All I can say, is if people who support the GLBT community in

every way but the word marriage, are the enemy, you're doing the fight for full equal rights no favors. I'm not suggesting appeasement in any way. I'm suggesting talking to these people and changing their minds. It's happened all over the state of Vermont, where a majority now supports equal marriage rights. I'll tell you one thing: That sure as hell didn't happen because people ran around telling people what bigots they are. It happened because of a lot of dialogue over several years and because people saw that civil unions weren't a threat and weren't good enough.

[jpgray]

61. No one is casting such people as "the enemy," but they shouldn't expect praise for their timidity

And it seems that when they don't receive such praise, they construe the lack as hostility. Such behavior is self-important, complacent silliness--more about wanting to feel noble in half-hearted support for a cause than any real feeling for GLBT rights. If one is afraid to stake out the position one's ostensible ideals would argue for (equal rights), one shouldn't expect any adulation for it.

[Blarch]

64. Not only do I support civil unions ...going the 95%..

I go the last 5% and demand gay marriage rights ...and I am still called a homo phobe on this site. I am 100% behind them and still get tagged a homo phobe.

Then they call this progress ? ...wtf ? ...starting to get sick of this shit.

[AntiFascist]

65. I'm not trying to "cast Obama as the enemy"...

this is a strawman argument that is being used to try and marginalize our concern and get us to shut up.

Calling out Obama for his religious bigotry is part of the educational process. When he made his statement at the Saddleback Forum he stressed that he believed that a marriage between a man and a woman was particularly sacred to Christianity. If he can begin to understand how bigoted this point of view is, then our work is done. I have little problem if he maintains this as a personal belief, but using it for political purposes is a separate matter.

[RetroLounge]

66. Well, as long as one still supports white-only water fountains

and lunch counters, but is good on voting rights, education, etc.

Then I suppose that's okay.

:sarcasm:

RL

[cali]

70. dog, I'm sick of teh stupid.

but hey, if you want to alienate people who support everything but the word marriage and call them names, instead of holding a dialogue with them and informing them why civil unions with all the benefits of marriage are inherently unequal, feel free.

[RetroLounge]

78. call them names?

What post are you reading?

RL

[La Lioness Priyanka]

67. the person isnt an enemy on the other hand the person is a bigot. nt

[pipi_k]

74. No, dear, the person isn't a bigot.

Read below.

Sometimes it's just plain innocent ignorance, NOT bigotry.



But keep up with the namecalling. I'm sure it's helping the cause.

[La Lioness Priyanka]

75. are these bigots on du? that i am ruining my cause on a website?

:eyes:

[pipi_k]

80. Maybe

Especially if the people you call "bigots" disengage from the whole thing because they (we) are sick and tired of being called names just because we aren't as fully emotionally engaged as the Outraged Few are.

I've been outraged for eight long years. I cannot handle any more outrage...sorry. I can't work up sufficient outrage over Rick Warren or any other topic that happens to come up in the near future.

Does that make me a bigot? Whatever.... :shrug:


OTOH, people who are running around in a perpetual tizzy are being asked some very pertinent questions...like....instead of complaining on a website, why not direct all this considerable energy and emotion in directions where it will really count? Don't come here and call us bigots...go OUT THERE and educate people. Protest. Make yourselves heard as loudly as you do here.

And what's the response to this?

"You're telling us to STFU??????? How DARE you?????"

Nobody said to STFU...

but coming here and complaining day after day after day about the same thing....I dunno...it's said that the definition of insanity is doing the same things over and over, expecting different results.

I'm not going to call anyone insane...certainly not to their faces...but I will say that there's got to be something wrong with people who come here and vilify their allies day after day.

Maybe it's just safer?

Whatever. I wash my hands of it.

But, website or not...it's certainly not sporting to call your allies...even people who support only 95% of your cause..."bigots".

[Two Americas]

84. that is bigotry

You can't have bigotry without ignorance.

[gollygee]

68. The question is WHY would a person be in favor of all those things but not marriage equality?

Because they are bigots. What other reason is there? I don't know that it makes them "the enemy" unless they're donating money to keep people's rights from being realized or actively working to take away rights or keep people from having rights in some other way. But the only reason someone would have that opinion would be because they have bigoted feelings regarding gay people.

[cali]

69. I can only tell you of my experience with people

And I've had quite a bit of it here in Vermont. Generally it seems to be that these are older people who grew up accepting that marriage is between a man and a woman. Most of the folks I know who fall into this catagory are not religious, and over the years, most of them came to support marriage. Clearly someone who supports virtually every right for the GLBT community with the exception of the word marriage, is NOT donating money to keep people's rights from being realized. And no, the reason most people I've know support everything but the word marriage is not because they're bigots, but because they didn't fully understand the essential unfairness inherent in civil unions that grant the same rights as marriage.

[pipi_k]

73. Because maybe it's just that they don't know the difference

Like someone else pointed out above with a mom who is for all equal rights but marriage because the mom views marriage as more of a religious entity than a doorway to full equal rights.

I have to admit to not knowing the difference myself until quite recently, for the same reason..."marriage" often implies to people a church wedding, etc. It's not that I want to deny people that option, but at the same time, because I didn't understand the difference, I was like, what is the problem here?

OK..I did some reading. Now I do understand the difference, and why there is a difference.

The sad thing is that some people have come out and asked what is the difference, and in at least one thread I saw, the person was insulted by others who used sarcasm and nastiness to attack the person for not knowing, but wanting to find out. Yeah...way to go. People ask for education...clarification...and they're STILL being dumped on.

Use the wrong terminology and get one's head torn off.

Be unable to feel the same level of outrage (while still supporting someone else's right to do so) and automatically become one of "them" (The Enemy).

Anyway, it's not always bigotry that keeps people stuck in certain mindsets. Sometimes it's just a matter of someone taking them aside and explaining the whole issue in a civil manner (that means without the namecalling or sarcasm I've seen from others).

[MNBrewer]

79. It really IS all or nothing when it comes to "equality"

Get it?

[yardwork]

82. Because none of those other rights exist in most parts of the country, either.

Your argument is based on a false premise. You seem to be saying that since gay folks have those other rights, we shouldn't be upset about the lack of gay marriage. In fact, those other rights have been made unconstitutional in most states as well.

It's all one package.

[Two Americas]

83. no one is

No one us saying that a person like that is "the enemy."

We are saying they are wrong.

Whether or not they can or might change is not relevant, and does not make them right.

Whether or not there are positions they could be taking that would be worse does not make them right, either.

You either agree with a person who says those things, or you disagree with them. Why not honestly express whether or not you agree with a person making those statements, and explain and defend your position?

When you attack those who would disagree with your imaginary person, the assumption is that you agree with your imaginary person. But you are not coming out from hiding, you are not declaring and standing by your own opinion, but rather are going about this is a deceptive way by criticizing others, and misrepresenting their message, rather than refuting their message. (If that is what you are trying to do.) You just know that what you posted supports one position and attacks the other, in practical effect. Why not he honest and declare that as your intention? Or, if that was nit your intention, I expect to see you post "oops, I didn't mean to support the other side. Sorry."