10 ms·

To some of the sub-comments to this: Not at all (AT ALL) defending Prop 8 here, but where do you draw the line in cutting these people out of your life? Take

To some of the sub-comments to this: Not at all (AT ALL) defending Prop 8 here, but where do you draw the line in cutting these people out of your life? Take the issue of abortion, which is easier to see that there are no easy answers. You either believe that abortion is MURDER or stopping abortion curtails PERSONAL LIBERTY for all women. Either way, people are defending a highly moral position and you can argue against their conclusions but you should at least try to respect their personal opinion, especially if they afford you that same respect. I look at the new Lincoln movie and that makes a lot of these points for me. Everyone is entitled to shun bigots and work only with people they agree with, but there is an opportunity to improve things for everyone by sitting down at the same table with people we disagree with rather than vilifying their existence.

coldpie 14y ago
There is pretty clearly a line between those two moral choices. The abortion debate is basically a balancing act between two undesirable outcomes. No one likes abortions, but no one (by simple definition) wants unwanted children, either. Choosing either outcome is very much a moral gray area; how do you know you've made the correct decision? I don't think anyone has the right to make that decision for someone else, but I completely understand where the other side is coming from. On the other hand, there is no such balancing act in same sex marriage. It is an entirely positive, beneficial expression of love between two individuals. There is no choosing a lesser evil, it's simply a good thing. Why would any reasonable person choose to prevent a good thing for absolutely no reason at all? I can't understand the other side at all, because they aren't using any sort of logic to arrive at their conclusion. Frankly, very few issues these days are as stark right-and-wrong as same sex marriage is. I think it's entirely reasonable to shun and openly shame homophobes in 2013. Perhaps you have the patience to sit down and try to talk with these lunatics, but I don't have that kind of patience. Just like racists, homophobes deserve nothing but derision, and just like slavers, they deserve to ultimately be nothing more than a chapter in a civil rights history text. I won't have them in my life, and I am missing nothing by their exclusion.
- jiggy2011 14y ago
  Problem is plenty of people aren't reasonable, or may be reasonable but refuse to apply reason to some discussions; you can probably thank religion for that. It is entirely possible that future generations will look back on the debate and just laugh at it as we laugh at people who used to burn witches. You will certainly find people today who would think it was disgusting and offensive to even think of supporting gay marriage and these people have some considerable % of the money and votes so you can't really dismiss them. So the purpose should not be to enforce views, but to enforce certain actions. So you can be as racist as you want , but you can't refuse somebody a job on the basis of race.
- jerf 14y ago
  "There is pretty clearly a line between those two moral choices"... to coldpie. "Frankly, very few issues these days are as stark right-and-wrong as same sex marriage is"... for coldpie.
- newnewnew 14y ago
  If abortion were rare, I might agree with you that there is some trade-off involved that we have to consider, some hard-luck cases. But about 25% of my generation was killed by abortion, including 50% of black babies. That's sickening, and the word "genocide" starts to creep into my mind. The same sex marriage debate is nowhere near as urgent or serious as the abortion debate.
  - pilgrim689 14y ago
    Serious issues like abortion must be approached with more care than you are offering it. Call things like they are, firstly, and avoid bending the English language for dramatic effect. Abortions deal with an "embryo" or "fetus", not a "baby" or a "generation", both of which are born beings (out of the womb). The argument is thus not "is it ok to murder people?", as you're trying to make it look like (we've solved that ethical problem already...), but rather, the question is "when does an embryo become a 'person'?".
    - newnewnew 14y ago

coldpie 14y ago

There is pretty clearly a line between those two moral choices. The abortion debate is basically a balancing act between two undesirable outcomes. No one likes abortions, but no one (by simple definition) wants unwanted children, either. Choosing either outcome is very much a moral gray area; how do you know you've made the correct decision? I don't think anyone has the right to make that decision for someone else, but I completely understand where the other side is coming from. On the other hand, there is no such balancing act in same sex marriage. It is an entirely positive, beneficial expression of love between two individuals. There is no choosing a lesser evil, it's simply a good thing. Why would any reasonable person choose to prevent a good thing for absolutely no reason at all? I can't understand the other side at all, because they aren't using any sort of logic to arrive at their conclusion. Frankly, very few issues these days are as stark right-and-wrong as same sex marriage is. I think it's entirely reasonable to shun and openly shame homophobes in 2013. Perhaps you have the patience to sit down and try to talk with these lunatics, but I don't have that kind of patience. Just like racists, homophobes deserve nothing but derision, and just like slavers, they deserve to ultimately be nothing more than a chapter in a civil rights history text. I won't have them in my life, and I am missing nothing by their exclusion.

jiggy2011 14y ago
Problem is plenty of people aren't reasonable, or may be reasonable but refuse to apply reason to some discussions; you can probably thank religion for that. It is entirely possible that future generations will look back on the debate and just laugh at it as we laugh at people who used to burn witches. You will certainly find people today who would think it was disgusting and offensive to even think of supporting gay marriage and these people have some considerable % of the money and votes so you can't really dismiss them. So the purpose should not be to enforce views, but to enforce certain actions. So you can be as racist as you want , but you can't refuse somebody a job on the basis of race.
jerf 14y ago
"There is pretty clearly a line between those two moral choices"... to coldpie. "Frankly, very few issues these days are as stark right-and-wrong as same sex marriage is"... for coldpie.
newnewnew 14y ago
If abortion were rare, I might agree with you that there is some trade-off involved that we have to consider, some hard-luck cases. But about 25% of my generation was killed by abortion, including 50% of black babies. That's sickening, and the word "genocide" starts to creep into my mind. The same sex marriage debate is nowhere near as urgent or serious as the abortion debate.
- pilgrim689 14y ago
  Serious issues like abortion must be approached with more care than you are offering it. Call things like they are, firstly, and avoid bending the English language for dramatic effect. Abortions deal with an "embryo" or "fetus", not a "baby" or a "generation", both of which are born beings (out of the womb). The argument is thus not "is it ok to murder people?", as you're trying to make it look like (we've solved that ethical problem already...), but rather, the question is "when does an embryo become a 'person'?".
  - newnewnew 14y ago