Wednesday, August 10, 2005

Interesting perspective.

Oh, one more thing. In the previous post's comment box you were quoted as having said that "A government's job is to represent the majority of people. That's how they are supposed to make their decisions - by taking the general opinion of their constituents, and doing what they want." And while that is true, it is also a government's job to defend minorities.
Vanessa | 08.10.05 - 3:33 am


And Lisa's response, which I actually found quite interesting as a way of rationalizing her stance on the issue. I personally had never thought of it like that, so it came as a bit of a surprise. It made me smile at how clever it was. :-)

I agree. But the homosexuality thing isn't about defending rights, it was about changing the definition of marriage.

Up until just a little while ago, homosexuals had the exact same rights that everyone else did. No one could marry another person of the same gender. I couldn't, you couldn't, no one could. So it wasn't about defending the rights of anyone, it was about changing the definition of marriage, which is what most people seem to have an issue with.
Lisa | 08.10.05 - 8:11 pm


The difference is, heterosexuals didn't want to marry someone of the same gender. If you want to equate rights, it would be like saying you didn't have the right to marry the person you fell in love with. You've got the cart before the horse. They didn't have the same rights, because you got to marry the person you fell in love with if you wanted, because you were heterosexual and fit the old standard and religious definition of marriage, the old outdated and incorrect one that says that homosexuality is an abomination in Gods eyes and teaches you to be the bigot that you are. :-)

Thankfully, enough people aren't living in an archaic religious based fantasy world that they realize that the real difference is that there were normal adult people who were in love with each other, spending their lives together as lovers and wanted to be married as the normal people that they were, and they couldn't because of a law that did not grant them equal rights... that expressly prevented them from being like everyone else and perpetuated the stereotype that they were deviants who had simply made a sick and perverse choice in violation of Gods will.

It's like having a law against insulin. We'd both have the same rights, but it certainly wouldn't bother me like it would a type 1 diabetic, who really couldn't just make the choice not to be one now could he.

But a cute approach to rationalizing discrimination to one's self none the less. ;-)

/ / / / / / / /

4 comments:

Lisa said...

I wasn't rationalizing or justifying anything - I was pinpointing where the main issue comes from, changing the definition of marriage. It's true. From what I remember, the statistics that you posted a little while ago showed that only four in ten believed that the marriages should be “fully recognized and equal to conventional heterosexual marriages"...that's where the majority of those polled differed, not whether or not the lifestyle was wrong or right.

I never saw the issue as whether being gay is right or wrong. That's one of the reasons why I refused to debate it with you. Even within the government - no one is debating whether or not homosexual people have the right to be homosexual, or whether it's right or wrong. It's about whether or not the definition of marriage should be changed.

In my comment I wasn't debating anything, I was saying that that is where the issue lies. For most people that I have talked to, that is what they have issues with - the actual changing the definition of marriage.


And I just thought I would look at the definition of a bigot, seeing as how you called me one. It is "a prejudiced person who is intolerant of any opinions differing from his own".

I am not prejudice, and I am not intolerant of others opinions. In fact, of the two of us, I would say that you are more of a bigot than I am, considering one of the comments you made earlier - "I hate Christians". Hating religion is one thing, but hating those who are a part of a certain one? Sounds a little prejudice, don't you think?

If other people have differing opinions than mine, that's fine with me, I don't mind. In this case, I have no problem with gay people - I have gay friends, and they're generally nice people.

You, on the other hand, generalize people based on their religious beliefs, and make judgements on the kind of person they are by what they believe.

I disagree with what you said, that they didn't have the same rights as heterosexuals. Everyone in Canada had/has the same rights on a personal level. We are all allowed to fall in love with with whomever we choose. But none of us, heterosexual or not, were allowed to marry someone of the same gender.

When you group people into homosexual and heterosexual, though, then you get a difference in rights, I suppose. But then going back, as an individual, we all have the same rights. It depends on which perspective you choose to look at it, and both make logical sense.

Phreadom said...

Yes, I've often tried to clarify that I hate religion and not the people themselves... but as a group dedicated to ignorance and fairytales, I hate the group. I hate Christians as people that choose to be a part of a group so detrimental to the advancement of humanity. If you choose to be a part of such a group, that is in fact your choice. For instance if I'm black and I hate the Ku Klux Klan for being a bunch of ignorant racist pieces of shit... am I being prejudiced? Just because you unfortunately happen to, by choice, belong to a group of fucking sheep, doesn't make my stance the wrong one.

And it's funny that you can ignore the fact that most of the people who are against changing the definition of marriage are the same people, like you, who think that homosexuality is wrong and a sin and all that other fun Christian bullshit, but insist that that in no way plays a part in their opposition to same-sex marriage. *chuckle* "Oh, we think they're sick sinners who make the choice to live a lifestyle which is an abomination in gods eyes and they're going to burn in hell. But we have no problem with them at all! And that in no way affects our stance against same-sex marriage. What with us claiming that marriage is a religious institution and all, and quite monumentally falsely claiming that marriage has always been historically between a man and a woman."

Riiiiiight. Yeeeeaaaaaaaah. I was just thinking the same thing! ;-)

The difference here is that your stances only make logical sense when you ignore a larger set of facts. Which is where you get upset with me. Obviously with an ignorant worldview where you're not dealing with all the facts, not dealing with entirely correct information and only factoring in those facts which aid your preconceived notion, of course you're going to make it logically fit.

Just like I said... if you ignore the fact that the type 1 diabetic has diabetes, then there's no difference between he and I! So why should he care about an anti-insulin law? That's ridiculous of him. But if we factor in the fact that he's a type 1 diabetic, now obviously that changes the definition of "same", now doesn't it? Yep. :-)

And for the record, if I was gay, I wouldn't be your friend. I'd call you a hypocritical ignorant duplicitous bitch that was too stupid to even comprehend the twisted self-contradictory nature of her own fallacy ridden beliefs. If someone thinks that I'm an abomination in gods eyes and that I'm going to burn in hell for what they perceive as my sick and wrong choice to be gay, I'm sure as HELL not going to have any respect for them or by any means consider them a friend.

It's sad that you just don't get it.

Plus, I thought you weren't going to read my blog because it just upsets you? I don't mind if you do, but don't blame it on me if it pisses you off, you knew that before you came here. ;-)

Phreadom said...

To further clarify a point... if I liked you as a person and thought you were nice and respectable etc... but you smoked crack, and when you smoked crack, you robbed and whored yourself out for rocks etc, due to the influence of the drug... and then I said "I fucking hate crackheads." and you got all offended and said I was being prejudiced... it's not because I hate you as a person, I hate you on crack. crack makes people do dumb shit, just like christianity.... hence, I hate christians like I hate crackheads. it's not that I inherently hate the person, I hate the person under the influence of something stupid causing them to do stupid things. So I hate that thing as the collective group, eg; crackheads.

Am I a prejudiced bigot for hating crackheads? It's not so much a matter of difference of opinion, I have an intolerance for stupidity and a lack of understanding facts and reality. I have a lack of tolerance for people who can't seem to see the big picture, and who willfully try to ignore parts of it because they conflict with that persons preconceived notions of what outcome they want.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cognitive_dissonance

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Confirmation_bias

For god's sake, PLEASE read those. Read them twice if you need to. But READ THEM AND THINK PLEASE. Learn to recognize that feeling you're getting... learn to understand it as a sign that you need to not ignore what's causing it, but actually seriously consider it and weigh all the facts and come to an informed, logical, rational and objective conclusion based upon all the facts and not simply upon an ignorant gut feeling.

Lisa said...

...

Why do you have to be so rude? I was being totally civil, I was explaining my thoughts, I wasn't getting angry or anything.

Thanks a lot.