"I Don't Have A Problem With Gay People..."

what is it then?

 

Why not?

Answered your post of this same question in another thread. Not going to waste my time repeating the answer here. If you don't think marriage is a right, then I suggest you don't deserve the rights you fail to appreciate, including the ability to contract in marriage, uniting socially and economically with a consenting, competent adult of your mutual choosing - whether or not government licenses marriages and provides benefits to those licensed.

 

I don't care if you perceive what I say to be offensive. Some people get offended for everything and if they don't want to hear things it's their responsibility to try to avoid those things. My, and others, right to simply state an opinion shouldn't have to give way to people because of their feelings of this and that. I've made no personal attacks or anything, didn't use coarse language or anything. If you're still offended that's your business.

 

I shouldn't have to withhold my opinion just because you don't want to hear that I find yours offensive.

 

And I shouldn't have to withhold my opinion because you find it offensive either. And no one will act immaturely. Nothing more to be said about this now is there?

 

No, you shouldn't. Folks have a right to their opinions and a right to voice them. Even if they might be offensive to others. It creates some friction. But the benefit of doing so is they can discover how others take those opinions and perhaps, through dialog that often follows, gain an additional perspective on an issue.

As biology has taught us, a single perspective doesn't tell the whole story. The truest understanding comes from blending multiple perspectives. It's why we have two eyes.​

 

I hear ya OP. I cringe when I hear someone say "I am not homophobic but... or... I am not racist but... or... I am not sexist but...

 

They might as well just say, "Well I am not prejudiced but...I am prejudiced and this is why." lol

You know what else is annoying? "I'm not racist, I have this one black/Asian/Latino friend..." cracks me up every time I hear that one.

 

Sorry I was too busy staring at your avatar to read anything you wrot.

 

When people say "i'm not racist/homophobic but" it's because they want to emphasize that they are not homophobic/racist because they go on and say something that's probably controversial. If I'm going to say "I don't want gays to be able to marry" one of you will probably respond with "you are a homophobe!". clarifying that I'm not saves some time doesn't? Likewise, " i have a 'minority' firend" is used to preemtively dismiss the probable "you have not even met a 'minority' guy in your life! bigot bigot bigot" agrument. I don't get all the annoyance with this, it's just an attempt to smoothen things for you sensitive people out there. be happy 'bout it.

 

The point is, this doesn't work. If you're going to say something that you know is likely to be offensive, the lead-in isn't going to make it less offensive. The only think this accomplishes is that it forewarns your audience that you're about to say something that you know is offensive. It doesn't make what comes after any less offensive.

When someone pulls this crap, I'm already closing my mind off to their opinion before they can even finish the sentence.

 

Or to put it another way: I have friends who are (fill in the blank), too - I just don't feel the need to exploit them this way.

 

it reduces the shock. And what do you want people to do? just shut up or what?

 

Only in the sense that it prepares the audience, not because what comes after is any less shocking.

On the contrary, it makes the enemy easier to identify when they shoot off their mouths and reveal what they're actually thinking. I'd much rather know up front what a hateful mind someone has than to be greeted with smiles followed by a knife in the back.

 

Heres a new one. Not a homophobe but a "hateful mind"

 

And then it would be a shock, i.e something you're unprepared for, would it?

Frankly, if people are your enemies because they disagree with you on the definition of a word you are silly. really silly.

 

I think its more an equating the denial of marriage rights to same sex couples with racism and hatred of blacks. Which is of course absurd. Its been indoctrinated into them.

 

you don't think that pointing out the fact that, up until not too long ago, interracial couples were forbidden from getting married due to the irrational prejudices of the population is relevant when discussing how gays are forbidden from getting married due to the irrational prejudices of the population? Many disagree with you.

 

This isn't a mere disagreement over the definition of the word. This is also a typical tactic - the attempt to minimize the issue.

 

No, that would be the strawman you invent by purposely distorting your opponents' arguments to sound like something they're not.

 

How do you deal with the fact that this isn't a mere attempt to minimalize the issue because there are actually people to whom the only problem they could potentially have with gay marriage is that of the definition of the word marriage.

 

It is minimizing. It's an attempt to frame the objection as something less than it really is, and to be blind to the effects of that definition on the lives of real people when set into law.

The artifically narrow objection to changing the definition of marriage is itself not hard to defeat. Definitions are not set in stone. They evolve as societies evolve and apply words to new uses. A word is nothing more than a symbol for something else. The word 'chair' is not the chair itself. This is evident in the way people apply nouns to become verbs (such as to 'chair' a meeting), and vice versa. Objecting to this process is rather silly. No one owns a word or its definition. Let's also not lose sight here of the fact that we're talking about the legal definition. Laws are man-made, and man can alter those laws - including those that provide a legal definition for something.

In light of that, this is not merely an objection to changing the legal definition. It must encompass something more, and that something more becomes quickly evident in response to refutation of the argument that it's "only a disagreement about the definition of the word 'marriage'".

 

Its the real world. Something you dont deal with to well. Just one example.


Department of Agriculture activists want to impose their intense brand of homosexual sensitivity training governmentwide, including a discussion that compares “heterosexism” - believing marriage can be between only one man and one woman - to racism.
Read more: USDA gay-sensitivity training seeks larger audience - Washington Times http://www.washingtontimes.com/news...ts-seek-approval-govt-training/#ixzz25hirLXl9
Follow us: @washtimes on Twitter

 

Posting the biased opinion of a biased source may be a "real world" example of something, but not what you think that something is.

 

???? So then disregard any biased opinion and instead focus upon the facts. I just put "USDA" and "gay marriage" into google and grabbed the first search result.