> I've never even _heard_ of a sex-ed program that teaches this
I've had some first-hand reports from younger acquaintances of mine, sadly... The focus is usually on how sexual experimentation is just fine and healthy as long as you have protection (which is already something that makes some people uncomfortable for 14-year-olds), but some take it a bit further.
> There's no need for a separation if the _legal_ definition of "marriage" is > non-discriminatory.
While technically true, in practice people have a lot of baggage attached to the term "marriage" that has nothing to do with legal unions. Trying to convince them that their definition is wrong is an uphill battle that may not be worth fighting if you're _actually_ interested in equality before the law instead of posturing.
> intolerant of opinions, lifestyles, or identities differing from his or her own,
Intolerant in what sense? In the sense of thinking that no one should have them, or in the sense that they don't want to interact with people who have said opinions, lifestyles, identities?
It sounds like your definition assumes the former; a lot of people assume the latter.
I should also note that "intolerant of opinions" describes a _lot_ of people we generally don't consider bigots, even when they think that no one should hold those opinions....
Really? I see you haven't dealt with the sort of folks who happen to think that bigots aren't people and should have no rights. There are some of them in this thread, and there are plenty of them out there in this country. They tend to cluster geographically and socially, though. They also tend to define "bigot" very widely, as anyone who doesn't agree with them on their entire social agenda.
> I view religion, as well as race and sexual orientation, as an integral and > intractable part of one's being.
Uh... You do realize that people change religions? It's not even that rare.
Religion is a set of beliefs and customs. Many people never try to critically examine the one they inherited and just stick with it. The ones who _do_ critically examine it often change it.
I would like to know what your definition of "bigotry" is before proceding further in this discussion, though, since what you say is clearly true for some definitions of "bigotry" but not other common ones.
> What are schools teaching that is so objectionable?
Which examples do you want?
Teaching that all modes of behavior are acceptable (e.g. that if you want to have multiple sexual partners it's all ok as long as you use protection) is objectionable to some people.
Teaching that some mode of behavior (e.g. being gay, or going to church, or supporting Islamic religious organizations) is _not_ acceptable to other people.
Seriously, there's a _lot_ of propaganda presented as some mix of "history", and "civics" in our schools; which propaganda is most prevalent depends on who managed to get on the school board.
> It is a private thing, but they're making it into public policy.
Right; see "caveats" above. I don't agree with Prop 8, any more than I agree with the sporadic acts of violence that accompanied the public debate.
> who allow evil to take hold because you're concerned about the evil doers' rights.
You know... The US (where I happen to live) happens to be founded on the idea that even "evil doers" have rights. See Benjamin Franklin's "better one hundred guilty persons should escape" quote.
That said, I see you're one of the "brave" few men who think that imposing their worldview by force on others is good because their worldview is right. I've lived in countries run by your like before (USSR), and it wasn't a happy experience for me _or_ my family. I'm glad that the US is slightly less far gone along this direction than the USSR was.
> because you have nothing to lose
On the contrary; in a discussion about when it's ok to use force against people you happen to disagree with, we all have everything to lose.
> (but noticeably provided no corresponding examples)
Mea culpa for assuming that everyone is familiar with said examples; they're well-publicised. I don't see where "lip service" comes in, though. For the most part both sides are reasonably civil; there have been a few ugly incidents on both sides (more in the past on the anti-gay side, agreed).
But the original context was whether people can credibly feel threatened by their name being published on an anti-gay petition. My point was that if someone were living in California and seeing articles like that, one could in fact feel threatened. Would it be justified? Most likely no one would target them....
> You refuted an assertion that the "gay community" was not, as a collective group, > committing "violent oppression"
No, I refuted the assertion that there has been collective violent oppression in one direction but not the other by pointing out that the evidence for violent oppression in both directions is similar in character.
That is, my claim was that there was no more collective violent oppression practiced against the gay community in California than there is practiced against anti-gay activists. I will stand by this claim, though obviously proving it would involve a much more serious study of the incidents involved.
> If you were truly espousing your idea - you also need to highlight all the gay bashing
Wait a sec. I highlighted the California incidents as a specific rebuttal to a specific claim that anti-gay activists need not fear physical retribution.
Had someone made the equally absurd claim that gay activists need not fear physical retribution, I'd certainly highlight incidents showing otherwise!
> Specious writings like these, passing off as balanced but subtly edging towards an agenda > are devious
Uh... what agenda?
> Let us not forget the fact that gays do not actively tell you that you will be going to > hell because of a certain book.
No, though they may well tell me that I'm a despicable person for thinking certain thoughts. That's pretty much the same thing, and is a common response in human societies when dealing with out-group members.
> What I find hilariously funny is that these gay-bashers are hypocrites in every sense of > the word
Sure thing. Unfortunately, so are most people who live their lives by a complex and self-contradictory moral system. Which happens to be most people....
> I can't wait for the afterlife to find all these bible-toting people in hell with gays.
While I understand where this sentiment is coming from, the basic premise of "you will suffer eternal torment for your thoughts" seems... odd to me.;)
> To be Christian is to be kind, benevolent, accepting yourself for who you are, and > accepting others for who they are.
Not being Christian, I'll take your word for it. But note that one issue here is that the scripture of any major religion is complex enough (due to being developed in a wide range of different situations and environments) that one can cherry-pick many moral codes from it. I'm glad you're cherry-picking a benevolent one!
That said, I will admit that the number of Christians who insist on claiming that what they call the Old Testament was repudiated but yet cite the less savory parts of it in support of their actions has never made sense to me....
> Except the state isn't trying to force any kind of morality on them
Actually, they are, through the public education system. This may or may not be a good thing, but there are plenty of people in this country, in all parts of the political spectrum, who disagree with the morality our public schools teach. Some send their kids to private school as a result, some home-school, some just teach their kids to take what school teaches them with a grain of salt.
> believe they're in possession of some sort of "universal moral code" which proclaims that > being gay is wrong.
Yep, they do in fact believe that. I happen to think they're wrong, but I also happen to think that moral codes are a private matter, by and large. Various caveats apply in terms of my moral code's effect on you, etc.
In any case, we seem to have drifted far from the original argument in this thread, which is about whether people can have a credible fear of violent acts if their opposition to gay marriage is publicised....
Why? What makes one "weird" belief ok to insult while another is not, except that one may have powerful vested interests protecting it while the other does not?
> The right that was being taken away, for one, did not cause any wrong.
I'm not sure I follow.
I want to plant a tree in my back yard. We the people have decided that this should involve an expensive and time consuming permitting process (possibly with good reason). I have to spend money and time proving that the tree won't hurt anyone.
Clearly this is desirable in some cases, but pretending that there was no impact on me is silly.
> Also you cherrypicked a handful of incidents none of which are categorizable as > vioolence;
I linked to the first google hit on the matter. There are plenty more if you care to do thorough research. I'm not, though; I'm just illustrating a point.
> considering the violence queers still face daily in America
In some parts of America, yes. In other parts, opponents of gay marriage face violence. In still others, both do. In the latter parts, said opponents can in fact have reasonable concerns about being targeted.
You _did_ read what I actually said in my original comment, instead of just knee-jerking, right?
> getting spray painted or their house egged is the least they deserve
Ah, here's the crux of the matter. You seem to believe that physical intimidation is in fact ok, and in fact deserved, if someone's beliefs disagree with your own. I'm glad we got that cleared up.
Just three points on the "bigots live here" signs:
1) We would probably not consider it acceptable to put up a "Catholics live here" or "Mormons live here" sign (whether that makes sense or not is another issue). Why the double standard, apart from us disagreeing with the targeted persons?
2) If there is a pattern of violence in a community targeting a certain group Z, then putting up a sign saying "member of Z lives here" is a lot more unsavory than otherwise.
3) If there are consequences to holding certain beliefs (e.g. likely loss of work, etc), then outing people with such beliefs carries consequences that can be used to intimidate people. I have a hard time believing you'd consider it acceptable to intimidate people just because they disagree with you.
Well, that's a fundamental problem we need to solve, yes.
Though note that even in cases where non-marriage civil unions are available people seem to be unhappy with them and want "state-blessed" marriage instead...
> do you want social security coverage, health care, tenants right, inheritance, children's > care... to be overseen by churches' rules ?
No, I don't; that would be pretty unfortunate. Of course I don't want some of those items (children's care comes to mind) to be overseen by the government either. But thank you for imputing views to me on the basis of your stereotypes!
> You have yet to make this point except to backpedal.
Which point? That there were violent incidents targeted at intimidating people in the hope of affecting the voting on Prop 8?
> it's "we, the people" being tyrannical: rebelling is deserved.
Bullshit. Just because you oppose my right to dig in my yard (because you have reasonable concern that it will cause your yard to get flooded) and take away my right to do so without first going through a permitting procedure does not justify me physically attacking you. How is this case different?
> comparing "jews live here" to "bigots live here" is a very bad rethoric on your part. > Jew is a race and a religion
OK, replace "Jews" with "Catholics".
How is a religion anything other than "a state of mind"? That's pretty much the definition of a religion!
> Even the current pope failed with that "martyrdom" PR strategy
The pope failed because he was trying to defend illegal actions by saying that the legal proceedings aimed at sorting them out were somehow "harrassment". That's not the same thing as defending legal actions (like putting an election poster on your lawn) by saying that punching the owner of the poster in the face is unacceptable. If you don't see the difference, etc.
Today in the United States.... probably not, but that's a somewhat recent historical development having to do with a reduction in overt anti-Jewish prejudice.
> Clearly they want to deprive other people of civil rights seems like bigotry by any > standard.
Agreed; my problem is with the methods, not the sentiments. Sounds like you agree on that.
> However, the issue here is that the religious community is attempting to interfere with > the legal definition of marriage
And I think that's not acceptable, in states that do not have credible civil union legislation (and probably in the absence of federal rules requiring recognition of civil unions on the federal level and across state lines).
Sounds like we pretty much agree on that. Not sure whether we agree whether a violent response is justified.
> so that's how I would not characterize a sign saying "bigots live here" as violence.
It's not violence, indeed, but "violent oppression" includes intimidating (i.e. credible) threats of violence, in my book.
> Isolated incidents do not a concerted effort make
Sure thing. The OP implied that there was a concerted effort at "violent oppression" on the part of anti-gay advocates. As I said in my original comment (which you did read, right?), there's no more of such than there is a concerted effort at violence in the gay community in California.
> What you're doing here is stereotyping gay people (and pro-gay people)
No, I don't think I am. I think I pretty explicitly said that only a small minority of these groups is involved in such acts, and that they're not at all representative of the groups as a whole.
> Which, frankly, considering your established position on groups of people that are not > like you
Interesting. What are these positions that I'm not aware of?;)
> PS, this written criticism of your logic, misappropriation, and prejudice should not be > construed as "violence".
But of course. Though so far it does look like poor reading comprehension....
> Hating all Jews because of their perceived behavior and opinions is racism.
Why?
Is hating all Catholics because of their perceived behavior and opinions racism? Is hating all opponents of gay marriage because of their perceived behavior and opinions racism? What's the difference?
> in the second one, it is the behavior of others that causes the hatred.
I agree that this is a valid distinction. However, there are plenty of instances of ethnic or religions hatred that fall under your latter definition, simply because there are cases when ethnic or religious groups do in fact behave somewhat homogeneously.
Would you consider it OK to hate all people who happen to feel that they need to wear tzizit, and show this by punching them in the face whenever you happen to meet them? I'd bet no.
> Apparently you'd like to re-frame your statement to compare their 'Bigots live here' to > '[X believer] lives here'.
I don't know about "reframe". I pretty explicitly made this comparison.
> There's lots of religious people who support gay marriage.
What does that have to do with the discussion? My point is that a "bigots live here" sign is a sign that calls out the beliefs of someone and invites others to ridicule this person for those beliefs. We seem to have serious double standard issues for which beliefs are OK to highlight in this way and which are not, largely to do with the beliefs that the people in power (which is NOT the same thing as the people in government, necessarily) happen to hold. You may view this as acceptable, but how is it not oppression?
> Just because an opinion is based on religious reasoning doesn't put that opinion above > disdain from everyone else
I have no problem with attacking opinions, with words. I have a problem with attacking people who my hold those opinions, physically.
> Your source is probably at least a little biased
Oh, absolutely. There was a fair number of such reports at the time, though; this was just one that was close to hand when googling now.
> Your comparison to Jews doesn't work because the Jews were a scapegoat,
Well.... Yes, but a number of people did believe that the problem was that the Jews' beliefs were implemented in ways that affected their lives.
> I'm also not willing to admit that a punch in the face or some spraypaint in retribution > for measurable actions is the same as brutal murder because of dislike for how someone > lives his or her life when it has no effect on the persecutor.
Sure, due to the difference in the severity of the crime. But note that a number of people in the anti-gay movement do feel that there is an effect on them, and more importantly on their children, in terms of the state trying to force a particular morality on them at the instigation of gay rights groups. This is a common viewpoint, whether you or I may agree with it or not. The problem is that "no effect" is a subjective notion....
> There's a big difference between hating someone for their race and hating someone for > their opinions and behavior
Most of the hatred of Jews historically has been for their opinions and behavior; the Third Reich is a rare exception that attempted to reclassify the whole thing as a racial issue. In the US, in particular, Judaism is typically viewed as a religion, not a race.
Replace "Jews live here" with "Mormons live here" or "Catholics live here" if you prefer. My point stands.
In general, religious intolerance is precisely "hating someone for their opinions and behavior" and is no different from what was going on here.
> Actually, I think I would view that as "violent rebellion" and not oppression.
Uh... no. "Violent rebellion" is when someone targets the government via violent action. Targeting your neighbors for what they happen to believe is NOT violent rebellion.
Specifically, violent attacks on neighbors who you think will be unable to defend themselves because they will lose in the court of public opinion (which is what was going on in large part during the Prop 8 shenanigans) aren't justified.
> The gays are the ones being oppressed by Proposition 8
That's really a matter of opinion. I happen to think "marriage" isn't a right at all. An economic union that's treated in preferred ways by the government (visitation rights, join tax returns, etc, etc), on the other hand, should be if such a thing exists.
> You know, the law that's supposed to keep church and state separate and all that good' > stuff.
Yep, so why's government involved in marriage at all? It shouldn't be.
Slashdot Mirror
> I've never even _heard_ of a sex-ed program that teaches this
I've had some first-hand reports from younger acquaintances of mine, sadly... The focus is usually on how sexual experimentation is just fine and healthy as long as you have protection (which is already something that makes some people uncomfortable for 14-year-olds), but some take it a bit further.
> Sure you're not conflating
Sadly, yes...
> It isn't the thoughts, its the actions.
Agreed. You were talking about what people say, though, not what they do.
> There's no need for a separation if the _legal_ definition of "marriage" is
> non-discriminatory.
While technically true, in practice people have a lot of baggage attached to the term "marriage" that has nothing to do with legal unions. Trying to convince them that their definition is wrong is an uphill battle that may not be worth fighting if you're _actually_ interested in equality before the law instead of posturing.
> intolerant of opinions, lifestyles, or identities differing from his or her own,
Intolerant in what sense? In the sense of thinking that no one should have them, or in the sense that they don't want to interact with people who have said opinions, lifestyles, identities?
It sounds like your definition assumes the former; a lot of people assume the latter.
I should also note that "intolerant of opinions" describes a _lot_ of people we generally don't consider bigots, even when they think that no one should hold those opinions....
Really? I see you haven't dealt with the sort of folks who happen to think that bigots aren't people and should have no rights. There are some of them in this thread, and there are plenty of them out there in this country. They tend to cluster geographically and socially, though. They also tend to define "bigot" very widely, as anyone who doesn't agree with them on their entire social agenda.
> I view religion, as well as race and sexual orientation, as an integral and
> intractable part of one's being.
Uh... You do realize that people change religions? It's not even that rare.
Religion is a set of beliefs and customs. Many people never try to critically examine the one they inherited and just stick with it. The ones who _do_ critically examine it often change it.
I would like to know what your definition of "bigotry" is before proceding further in this discussion, though, since what you say is clearly true for some definitions of "bigotry" but not other common ones.
> What are schools teaching that is so objectionable?
Which examples do you want?
Teaching that all modes of behavior are acceptable (e.g. that if you want to have multiple sexual partners it's all ok as long as you use protection) is objectionable to some people.
Teaching that some mode of behavior (e.g. being gay, or going to church, or supporting Islamic religious organizations) is _not_ acceptable to other people.
Seriously, there's a _lot_ of propaganda presented as some mix of "history", and "civics" in our schools; which propaganda is most prevalent depends on who managed to get on the school board.
> It is a private thing, but they're making it into public policy.
Right; see "caveats" above. I don't agree with Prop 8, any more than I agree with the sporadic acts of violence that accompanied the public debate.
> who allow evil to take hold because you're concerned about the evil doers' rights.
You know... The US (where I happen to live) happens to be founded on the idea that even "evil doers" have rights. See Benjamin Franklin's "better one hundred guilty persons should escape" quote.
That said, I see you're one of the "brave" few men who think that imposing their worldview by force on others is good because their worldview is right. I've lived in countries run by your like before (USSR), and it wasn't a happy experience for me _or_ my family. I'm glad that the US is slightly less far gone along this direction than the USSR was.
> because you have nothing to lose
On the contrary; in a discussion about when it's ok to use force against people you happen to disagree with, we all have everything to lose.
> (but noticeably provided no corresponding examples)
Mea culpa for assuming that everyone is familiar with said examples; they're well-publicised. I don't see where "lip service" comes in, though. For the most part both sides are reasonably civil; there have been a few ugly incidents on both sides (more in the past on the anti-gay side, agreed).
But the original context was whether people can credibly feel threatened by their name being published on an anti-gay petition. My point was that if someone were living in California and seeing articles like that, one could in fact feel threatened. Would it be justified? Most likely no one would target them....
> You refuted an assertion that the "gay community" was not, as a collective group,
> committing "violent oppression"
No, I refuted the assertion that there has been collective violent oppression in one direction but not the other by pointing out that the evidence for violent oppression in both directions is similar in character.
That is, my claim was that there was no more collective violent oppression practiced against the gay community in California than there is practiced against anti-gay activists. I will stand by this claim, though obviously proving it would involve a much more serious study of the incidents involved.
> If you were truly espousing your idea - you also need to highlight all the gay bashing
Wait a sec. I highlighted the California incidents as a specific rebuttal to a specific claim that anti-gay activists need not fear physical retribution.
Had someone made the equally absurd claim that gay activists need not fear physical retribution, I'd certainly highlight incidents showing otherwise!
> Specious writings like these, passing off as balanced but subtly edging towards an agenda
> are devious
Uh... what agenda?
> Let us not forget the fact that gays do not actively tell you that you will be going to
> hell because of a certain book.
No, though they may well tell me that I'm a despicable person for thinking certain thoughts. That's pretty much the same thing, and is a common response in human societies when dealing with out-group members.
> What I find hilariously funny is that these gay-bashers are hypocrites in every sense of
> the word
Sure thing. Unfortunately, so are most people who live their lives by a complex and self-contradictory moral system. Which happens to be most people....
> I can't wait for the afterlife to find all these bible-toting people in hell with gays.
While I understand where this sentiment is coming from, the basic premise of "you will suffer eternal torment for your thoughts" seems... odd to me. ;)
> To be Christian is to be kind, benevolent, accepting yourself for who you are, and
> accepting others for who they are.
Not being Christian, I'll take your word for it. But note that one issue here is that the scripture of any major religion is complex enough (due to being developed in a wide range of different situations and environments) that one can cherry-pick many moral codes from it. I'm glad you're cherry-picking a benevolent one!
That said, I will admit that the number of Christians who insist on claiming that what they call the Old Testament was repudiated but yet cite the less savory parts of it in support of their actions has never made sense to me....
> Except the state isn't trying to force any kind of morality on them
Actually, they are, through the public education system. This may or may not be a good thing, but there are plenty of people in this country, in all parts of the political spectrum, who disagree with the morality our public schools teach. Some send their kids to private school as a result, some home-school, some just teach their kids to take what school teaches them with a grain of salt.
> believe they're in possession of some sort of "universal moral code" which proclaims that
> being gay is wrong.
Yep, they do in fact believe that. I happen to think they're wrong, but I also happen to think that moral codes are a private matter, by and large. Various caveats apply in terms of my moral code's effect on you, etc.
In any case, we seem to have drifted far from the original argument in this thread, which is about whether people can have a credible fear of violent acts if their opposition to gay marriage is publicised....
Why? What makes one "weird" belief ok to insult while another is not, except that one may have powerful vested interests protecting it while the other does not?
> The right that was being taken away, for one, did not cause any wrong.
I'm not sure I follow.
I want to plant a tree in my back yard. We the people have decided that this should involve an expensive and time consuming permitting process (possibly with good reason). I have to spend money and time proving that the tree won't hurt anyone.
Clearly this is desirable in some cases, but pretending that there was no impact on me is silly.
> Also you cherrypicked a handful of incidents none of which are categorizable as
> vioolence;
I linked to the first google hit on the matter. There are plenty more if you care to do thorough research. I'm not, though; I'm just illustrating a point.
> considering the violence queers still face daily in America
In some parts of America, yes. In other parts, opponents of gay marriage face violence. In still others, both do. In the latter parts, said opponents can in fact have reasonable concerns about being targeted.
You _did_ read what I actually said in my original comment, instead of just knee-jerking, right?
> getting spray painted or their house egged is the least they deserve
Ah, here's the crux of the matter. You seem to believe that physical intimidation is in fact ok, and in fact deserved, if someone's beliefs disagree with your own. I'm glad we got that cleared up.
Just three points on the "bigots live here" signs:
1) We would probably not consider it acceptable to put up a "Catholics live here" or "Mormons live here" sign (whether that makes sense or not is another issue). Why the double standard, apart from us disagreeing with the targeted persons?
2) If there is a pattern of violence in a community targeting a certain group Z, then putting up a sign saying "member of Z lives here" is a lot more unsavory than otherwise.
3) If there are consequences to holding certain beliefs (e.g. likely loss of work, etc), then outing people with such beliefs carries consequences that can be used to intimidate people. I have a hard time believing you'd consider it acceptable to intimidate people just because they disagree with you.
> because marriage is a civil union
Well, that's a fundamental problem we need to solve, yes.
Though note that even in cases where non-marriage civil unions are available people seem to be unhappy with them and want "state-blessed" marriage instead...
> do you want social security coverage, health care, tenants right, inheritance, children's
> care... to be overseen by churches' rules ?
No, I don't; that would be pretty unfortunate. Of course I don't want some of those items (children's care comes to mind) to be overseen by the government either. But thank you for imputing views to me on the basis of your stereotypes!
> You have yet to make this point except to backpedal.
Which point? That there were violent incidents targeted at intimidating people in the hope of affecting the voting on Prop 8?
> it's "we, the people" being tyrannical: rebelling is deserved.
Bullshit. Just because you oppose my right to dig in my yard (because you have reasonable concern that it will cause your yard to get flooded) and take away my right to do so without first going through a permitting procedure does not justify me physically attacking you. How is this case different?
> comparing "jews live here" to "bigots live here" is a very bad rethoric on your part.
> Jew is a race and a religion
OK, replace "Jews" with "Catholics".
How is a religion anything other than "a state of mind"? That's pretty much the definition of a religion!
> Even the current pope failed with that "martyrdom" PR strategy
The pope failed because he was trying to defend illegal actions by saying that the legal proceedings aimed at sorting them out were somehow "harrassment". That's not the same thing as defending legal actions (like putting an election poster on your lawn) by saying that punching the owner of the poster in the face is unacceptable. If you don't see the difference, etc.
> Are some people secret Jews?
Historically speaking, yes.
Today in the United States.... probably not, but that's a somewhat recent historical development having to do with a reduction in overt anti-Jewish prejudice.
> Clearly they want to deprive other people of civil rights seems like bigotry by any
> standard.
Agreed; my problem is with the methods, not the sentiments. Sounds like you agree on that.
> However, the issue here is that the religious community is attempting to interfere with
> the legal definition of marriage
And I think that's not acceptable, in states that do not have credible civil union legislation (and probably in the absence of federal rules requiring recognition of civil unions on the federal level and across state lines).
Sounds like we pretty much agree on that. Not sure whether we agree whether a violent response is justified.
> so that's how I would not characterize a sign saying "bigots live here" as violence.
It's not violence, indeed, but "violent oppression" includes intimidating (i.e. credible) threats of violence, in my book.
> Isolated incidents do not a concerted effort make
Sure thing. The OP implied that there was a concerted effort at "violent oppression" on the part of anti-gay advocates. As I said in my original comment (which you did read, right?), there's no more of such than there is a concerted effort at violence in the gay community in California.
> What you're doing here is stereotyping gay people (and pro-gay people)
No, I don't think I am. I think I pretty explicitly said that only a small minority of these groups is involved in such acts, and that they're not at all representative of the groups as a whole.
> Which, frankly, considering your established position on groups of people that are not
> like you
Interesting. What are these positions that I'm not aware of? ;)
> PS, this written criticism of your logic, misappropriation, and prejudice should not be
> construed as "violence".
But of course. Though so far it does look like poor reading comprehension....
> Hating all Jews because of their perceived behavior and opinions is racism.
Why?
Is hating all Catholics because of their perceived behavior and opinions racism? Is hating all opponents of gay marriage because of their perceived behavior and opinions racism? What's the difference?
> in the second one, it is the behavior of others that causes the hatred.
I agree that this is a valid distinction. However, there are plenty of instances of ethnic or religions hatred that fall under your latter definition, simply because there are cases when ethnic or religious groups do in fact behave somewhat homogeneously.
Would you consider it OK to hate all people who happen to feel that they need to wear tzizit, and show this by punching them in the face whenever you happen to meet them? I'd bet no.
> Apparently you'd like to re-frame your statement to compare their 'Bigots live here' to
> '[X believer] lives here'.
I don't know about "reframe". I pretty explicitly made this comparison.
> There's lots of religious people who support gay marriage.
What does that have to do with the discussion? My point is that a "bigots live here" sign is a sign that calls out the beliefs of someone and invites others to ridicule this person for those beliefs. We seem to have serious double standard issues for which beliefs are OK to highlight in this way and which are not, largely to do with the beliefs that the people in power (which is NOT the same thing as the people in government, necessarily) happen to hold. You may view this as acceptable, but how is it not oppression?
> Just because an opinion is based on religious reasoning doesn't put that opinion above
> disdain from everyone else
I have no problem with attacking opinions, with words. I have a problem with attacking people who my hold those opinions, physically.
> Your source is probably at least a little biased
Oh, absolutely. There was a fair number of such reports at the time, though; this was just one that was close to hand when googling now.
> Your comparison to Jews doesn't work because the Jews were a scapegoat,
Well.... Yes, but a number of people did believe that the problem was that the Jews' beliefs were implemented in ways that affected their lives.
> I'm also not willing to admit that a punch in the face or some spraypaint in retribution
> for measurable actions is the same as brutal murder because of dislike for how someone
> lives his or her life when it has no effect on the persecutor.
Sure, due to the difference in the severity of the crime. But note that a number of people in the anti-gay movement do feel that there is an effect on them, and more importantly on their children, in terms of the state trying to force a particular morality on them at the instigation of gay rights groups. This is a common viewpoint, whether you or I may agree with it or not. The problem is that "no effect" is a subjective notion....
My point is that the concepts of "legal union" and "marriage" should be separated, as they are in quite a number of other countries.
> There's a big difference between hating someone for their race and hating someone for
> their opinions and behavior
Most of the hatred of Jews historically has been for their opinions and behavior; the Third Reich is a rare exception that attempted to reclassify the whole thing as a racial issue. In the US, in particular, Judaism is typically viewed as a religion, not a race.
Replace "Jews live here" with "Mormons live here" or "Catholics live here" if you prefer. My point stands.
In general, religious intolerance is precisely "hating someone for their opinions and behavior" and is no different from what was going on here.
> Actually, I think I would view that as "violent rebellion" and not oppression.
Uh... no. "Violent rebellion" is when someone targets the government via violent action. Targeting your neighbors for what they happen to believe is NOT violent rebellion.
Specifically, violent attacks on neighbors who you think will be unable to defend themselves because they will lose in the court of public opinion (which is what was going on in large part during the Prop 8 shenanigans) aren't justified.
> The gays are the ones being oppressed by Proposition 8
That's really a matter of opinion. I happen to think "marriage" isn't a right at all. An economic union that's treated in preferred ways by the government (visitation rights, join tax returns, etc, etc), on the other hand, should be if such a thing exists.
> You know, the law that's supposed to keep church and state separate and all that good'
> stuff.
Yep, so why's government involved in marriage at all? It shouldn't be.