Quote:
|
Originally Posted by FoolThemAll
Then vote and campaign against them. Like you do with every other politician who holds beliefs you disagree with.
|
If necessary, i'd include outing. Again...i've said it here before...it's a stratagy i'm somewhat uncomfortable with, but have accepted as necessary in certain situations. When one of "us" decides that their welfare is more important than the rest of the community, i think it becomes a proper defense to note the hypocrasy involved.
Quote:
Not be a bigot?
Because there is no obvious and certain bigotry on the surface of some of the arguments I've listed. There's obvious possible bigotry; they could hold these positions because they consider same-sex relationships inferior. But there's no bigotry that's both necessarily tied to the belief and obvious. At least not as I see it. I see the bigotry being necessarily tied to the belief if you dig deeply enough (at least as far as I've dug), but not automatic as if it's a simple equation of "anti-gay marriage = anti-gay". There's nuances that prevent that kind of simplicity, even if the nuances can be torn down.
|
I don't think you can have it both ways. Unless queer persons are thought to be inferior to straight ones, i can think of no rational reason of not extending marraige and other basic rights. Those nuances are smokescreen, not substance, IMO.
I don't think we need to come to agreement, but what i wanted to show, is from one perspective how the rhetoric comes to be like this. A lot of people see outing or oreos and think that's where the discussion starts. They then often place blame accordingly.
But what i'm getting at here, is that there is a preceeding action in these cases that the community believes to be harmful enough to warrant retaliation. There's a reason, even if you disagree with it, for the rhetoric to be this heated.