What would you do

[ronandannette]

The Confederate flag is inextricably linked with slavery. Just as prohibitions against gay marriage are inextricably liked to Matthew Shepard. You can't isolate a people within a society without irreparable harm. The logical conclusion is violence.

This is an outrageous stretch and I strongly disagree. Matthew Shepard (rest his soul) was the victim of a brutal murder fueled by hate for homosexuals, committed by vicious criminals. Same-sex marriage was not even a common thought at the time nor was there any hint that he was looking to get married. That concept had nothing to do with his murder, nor can you make him a poster boy for the cause. To do so implies anyone who (for moral or philosophical reasons) disagrees with same-sex marriage is a potential killer of young, gay men.

 

[Wishing on a star]

Very well said Ronandannette.
I too very strongly disagree. That is a totally outrageous statement.
In fact, I would argue and fight for quite the opposite.
It is very wrong to refuse to give any individual due consideration and to judge and convict them based on any percieved demographic/society.
Every person should be considered as an individual, and not, ever, just an extension of any supposed demographic/society.
(Just the same as one should not prejudge a demographic/society based on the actions of a few individuals)
In fact, that is the very definition of prejudice.
If you are a certain color of skin....
If you are a certain religious (or non-religious) sway...
If you are gay/or might not approve or support that...
If you are Conservative/Liberal...
Etc... Etc... Etc... on and on forever, ad-nauseum.
I would argue that this is exactly what is wrong with things in our society today.
Those who say they are against 'prejudice' and 'hate', sometimes can not see it for what it is. Or, somehow can justify it when it is because they think they are the one(s) who are in-the-right. That they are the ones who are justified in disrespect, judgement, curtailing another persons basic freedoms that we are known for.

Again, hatred comes from all sides.
Nobody has a corner on the market.

 

[kiddo76]

I am pretty ok with being prejudice against someone who idolizes Hitler. I can't even believe that is up for debate. That's not a demographic, that is pure evil.

 

[luvsJack]

I am pretty ok with being prejudice against someone who idolizes Hitler. I can't even believe that is up for debate. That's not a demographic, that is pure evil.

I think most agree with you, it’s just that the discussion has gone a bit past that.

 

[shelemm]

This is an outrageous stretch and I strongly disagree. Matthew Shepard (rest his soul) was the victim of a brutal murder fueled by hate for homosexuals, committed by vicious criminals. Same-sex marriage was not even a common thought at the time nor was there any hint that he was looking to get married. That concept had nothing to do with his murder, nor can you make him a poster boy for the cause. To do so implies anyone who (for moral or philosophical reasons) disagrees with same-sex marriage is a potential killer of young, gay men.

Denying any people rights does indeed lead to violence against them. It always has and always will. Freedom is merely privilege extended unless enjoyed by one and all.

 

[Searc]

Ignorance, hate and wanting to keep equal rights away from those viewed as less than for whatever ignorant reason do not deserve respect and will get none from me. There is no "both sides" bull crap when it comes to this type of stuff.

 

[shelemm]

I am pretty ok with being prejudice against someone who idolizes Hitler. I can't even believe that is up for debate. That's not a demographic, that is pure evil.

That is not pre-judging someone. That is examining their ideology as an individual and determining it is indeed loathsome. Prejudice is denying gay people the right to marry. That is pre-judging the group and coming to the determination that they should be denied that right. That it why it is immoral and wrong. And leads to certain violence to that group if they are denied the right to express that love. You can pretend to have clean hands if you want to deny them the right to marry, but that takes a hell of a lot of pretending.

 

[luvsJack]

Ignorance, hate and wanting to keep equal rights away from those viewed as less than for whatever ignorant reason do not deserve respect and will get none from me. There is no "both sides" bull crap when it comes to this type of stuff.

No one, including the pp you are referring to has said anything about hating anyone.

The fact that you are judging him without so much as a conversation to hear his views shows a whole lot more prejudice from you than he has shown.

 

[luvsJack]

That is not pre-judging someone. That is examining their ideology as an individual and determining it is indeed loathsome. Prejudice is denying gay people the right to marry. That is pre-judging the group and coming to the determination that they should be denied that right. That it why it is immoral and wrong. And leads to certain violence to that group if they are denied the right to express that love. You can pretend to have clean hands if you want to deny them the right to marry, but that takes a hell of a lot of pretending.

Hate for anyone that is different is what leads to violence to a group. Having a different opinion on an issue does not.

 

[PollyannaMom]

I am pretty ok with being prejudice against someone who idolizes Hitler. I can't even believe that is up for debate. That's not a demographic, that is pure evil.

I don't even think that is prejudice. Prejudice is being against a person for something they are. Idolizing Hitler is a decision they make. You're evaluating an individual (not a race, sex, skin color, etc.) based on something they have demonstrated and can change, not something they can't.

Keeping your distance from someone who participates in a hate group is not being prejudice, prejudice would be doing the same thing to a random person you don't know because they look like other people who might be in a hate group.

 

[DeniseJH]

Lol, I wasn’t imagining any extremism. Think about it. There are “rights” for women that not all women agree with. That some do find morally wrong.

IMO, although it can’t really be discussed here, no one should decide the pp is wrong simply based on a statement. You need to know his reasons.

And I will say again - to deny someone a right that others take for granted based on their age, sexual orientation, or race is discrimination. You're certainly entitled to your own morality, but you are not entitled to inflict it on others.

I really don't need to know his reasons - they are immaterial...see above.

 

[luvsJack]

And I will say again - to deny someone a right that others take for granted based on their age, sexual orientation, or race is discrimination. You're certainly entitled to your own morality, but you are not entitled to inflict it on others.

I really don't need to know his reasons - they are immaterial...see above.

But he isn’t denying anyone anything. He simply stated a belief. In my own instance, I have not changed the law. Doesn’t mean I can say I support it. It’s called a belief system and it’s ok to have one that differs from others. He believes in a definition of marriage, he didn’t say he was out protesting same sex marriage. And I don’t go out and protest at clinics.

 

[LSUmiss]

No one, including the pp you are referring to has said anything about hating anyone.

The fact that you are judging him without so much as a conversation to hear his views shows a whole lot more prejudice from you than he has shown.

What “views” could he possibly have that would make having neo-nazi symbols on his house ok?

 

[DeniseJH]

But he isn’t denying anyone anything. He simply stated a belief. In my own instance, I have not changed the law. Doesn’t mean I can say I support it. It’s called a belief system and it’s ok to have one that differs from others. He believes in a definition of marriage, he didn’t say he was out protesting same sex marriage. And I don’t go out and protest at clinics.

Of course he has that right, I've never said that he doesn't. I have been explaining how I believe he is wrong, as you said that he "shouldn't be told he is wrong for having it". It is wrong to be ok with people being discriminated against. It's not just my opinion based on my morality, it's based on the law.

 

[luvsJack]

What “views” could he possibly have that would make having neo-nazi symbols on his house ok?

Different “he“. I can’t imagine anything making those symbols ok.

 

[luvsJack]

Of course he has that right, I've never said that he doesn't. I have been explaining how I believe he is wrong, as you said that he "shouldn't be told he is wrong for having it". It is wrong to be ok with people being discriminated against. It's not just my opinion based on my morality, it's based on the law.

Laws can be wrong. His belief doesn’t go along with the law and mine doesn’t follow a different law. But I, personally, don’t just base my moral judgement on the law. His belief (or mine) are not wrong by OUR belief system. You can not agree with it but you don’t get to decide it is wrong.

 

[DeniseJH]

Laws can be wrong. His belief doesn’t go along with the law and mine doesn’t follow a different law. But I, personally, don’t just base my moral judgement on the law. His belief (or mine) are not wrong by OUR belief system. You can not agree with it but you don’t get to decide it is wrong.

LOL - ok, you can decide laws are wrong, but I can't say that someone's beliefs are wrong. That's just silly. It is wrong to hold a belief that it's ok to discriminate against someone. It - is - wrong.

 

[luvsJack]

LOL - ok, you can decide laws are wrong, but I can't say that someone's beliefs are wrong. That's just silly. It is wrong to hold a belief that it's ok to discriminate against someone. It - is - wrong.

I didn’t say I decide that some laws are wrong. I didn’t say that the laws dealing with my beliefs are wrong. I just said sometimes they are and I don’t base my belief system solely on the law.

Just a wild guess here but I think the pp’s opinion on marriage comes from his faith. And you do not get to decide that his faith is wrong. You just don’t.

You can not agree with it. You can state your own belief to the contrary but you do not get to say that anyone’s faith is wrong.

 

[DeniseJH]

I didn’t say I decide that some laws are wrong. I didn’t say that the laws dealing with my beliefs are wrong. I just said sometimes they are and I don’t base my belief system solely on the law.

Just a wild guess here but I think the pp’s opinion on marriage comes from his faith. And you do not get to decide that his faith is wrong. You just don’t.

You can not agree with it. You can state your own belief to the contrary but you do not get to say that anyone’s faith is wrong.

Of course I can, and do! I'll expound: If your faith leads you to, or allows you to, believe that it is ok to discriminate against others, it is wrong.

....AND, you feel you have the right to determine that some laws are wrong, but I don't have the right to say someone's beliefs are wrong. I got it the first time.

 

[luvsJack]

Of course I can, and do! I'll expound: If your faith leads you to, or allows you to, believe that it is ok to discriminate against others, it is wrong.

....AND, you feel you have the right to determine that some laws are wrong, but I don't have the right to say someone's beliefs are wrong. I got it the first time.

Seems to be a comprehension problem here. Not what I said. I said laws can be wrong. Besides none of this is about the law.

So it is ok for you to judge someone’s faith but it’s not ok for them to have a belief. Nice.

And no. You can say it. You can yell it to the roof tops. But you do not get to decide it.