Ok. I have an addiction. Sorry for saying I'm gone and then now reappearing.

From now on, if I'm gone, you will know I'm dead.

This is the exact text taken from another board. It's actually from a liberal female pastor....which scares me even more.

It is in response to many of us who support gay marriage.

I will post this vomit, then post my response.
----------------------------------------------------
"I wish we'd stop self-identifying as "open-minded" and pointing the finger at others for being "close-minded."

It's not "open-minded" to say that someone who disgrees with us is "close-minded." In fact, it seems to prove the opposite as it shows that the supposed "open-minded" person is just as unwilling to allow the other to hold their opinion as the "close-minded" person is.

"I'm open-minded because I think homosexual unions should be legal and you're wrong to think otherwise," is no more open-minded than, "I think gay marriage should not be permitted, and anyone who thinks otherwise is an wrong."

Both are damned self-righteous, IMO.

Open-mindedness, as I understand it, means that we are willing to tolerate a variety of perspectives, and differences of opinion. It doesn't mean that we're "right" and the other person is "wrong."
-----------------------------------------------------

My response:



I'm going to go ahead and pop back in.



First off, I don't care how much crap I get for stating I'm leaving then coming back. Perhaps I have an addiction.

But this kind of post is the kind lately that I feel I'm not doing my job as a human being if I just let it pass by without my input.


Open-mindedness has a few meaning to different people I guess.


If I'm truly open-minded, as this thread suggests, I would be a bigot for speaking out against serial killers. Their choices take away the rights of others, but should we consider their position equal?

Give me a break.

Should I be open-minded to the Taliban and the oppression they enforce on women?


Where is the line??


Sure...there is no answer key for "right" and "wrong".

But if you set a bar of ethics towards humanity as a guide, you can guage it better.


Hitler and an entire country had a strong point of view regarding Jews, gypsies, people with disabilitiles and the like.

Am I close minded for "judging" the nazi's as shit-stains on humanity?

If that makes me close minded, then sure. The point where openmindedness comes in regarding that, is that I'm all for helping these people to see how they are "wrong" and not just killing them.

Open-mindedness does not include ideology that denies equal rights of others. Gay-marriage does not deny rights of straight-married people.

"The Only Easy Day Was YesterdAy" - Navy SEAL motto



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 03/19/2013 10:20PM by ragingphoenix.

I love you RP...you run on emotions like I do and then follow it up with logic :)

Thanks Tupperwhere :) I love you too...

And there's no shame in speaking up in defense of the rights of others. Injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere.

Good to have you back!

Well, a self-appointed hero for close-minded people everywhere--poor downtrodden things. Why is it so often the church leaders who lead the fight against equality and fairness?

You won't get any flack from me for coming back already ragingphoenix. It seems like years already.


Close minded: not interested in new information or new points of view thereby negating spiritual growth and denying unconditional love. All the best parts of life are just circling over these people in a hold pattern with nowhere to land.

Open minded: Well, they're open.....to everything! So they get all the good stuff because they are landing strips.

Tolerance includes the ability to tolerate those one would view as intolerant. If you define down open-mindedness to only worldviews you agree with, then you are, in my opinion, being close-minded.

To me, open-mindedness includes acknowledgment (if not necessarily agreement or empathy) for the opinions of others and the recognition that they are sincerely held and make rational sense to the person holding them.

For example, take smoking. Most of us agree that it's bad. It's almost universally acknowledged to be a health risk. Because I am open-minded, I acknowledge that those who are lighting up are not any less worthy of my respect because they are smokers.

Gay marriage is a harder issue. But many people who believe gay marriage is wrong also believe fornication and adultery are wrong (their evident hypocrisy in many cases notwithstanding). They sincerely believe these things. They do not see it as withholding the rights of a gay couple. As marriage is now the domain of government to bestow or take away (in the case of divorce), these people want their personal views to be taken into consideration, and the state is the vector for the expression of such views.

As for me, I'd prefer to see government out of the marriage business entirely. I'd like to live in a world where gays can get married without a government permission slip, where we're all free to define the type of lives we want to live and with whom we wish to live them.

Many people you would view as "close-minded" are open to persuasion. Whether through reason or emotion, they have arrived at their worldview -- but they're there for a reason. If you wish to convince them, you'll have to acknowledge that the belief is sincerely held first, and then make your argument.

How can we tolerate something that directly interferes with human rights?

Good one, RP.

Personally, I think the biggest difference is that open-minded people are willing to allow others to have different beliefs and views from their own and recognize the validity of the rights of others to make their own choices and decisions.

Close minded people are not - either they're evil and going to hell, trying to corrupt "the good" folks, or need to isolate themselves from anyone who might think anything different. They often go to extreme lengths to prevent anyone "different" from participating in whatever process, whether religious, political or work-related they are passionate about.

Pathetic. Yes, Pathetic is my favorite word tonight, I'm trying to see how many times I can use it in various posts. So far, it's surprisingly (or unsurprisingly) easy to use it almost constantly!

spwdone Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Good one, RP.
>
> Personally, I think the biggest difference is that
> open-minded people are willing to allow others to
> have different beliefs and views from their own
> and recognize the validity of the rights of others
> to make their own choices and decisions.
So would that include respecting the right of churches who believe that homosexuality is wrong to opt out of performing same-sex marriage ceremonies?
Would that choice be allowed, even though it probably won't be well liked?

It has always been the right of individual denominations to perform or not perform marriages according to their beliefs. You already know this is true - Catholics don't have to marry divorced people, Orthodox Jews don't have to marry non Jews, Mormons don't have to marry people who drink tea and can't get a temple recommend. This is about civil marriage - the right to get a marriage license from the state and have the marriage recognized under law. The only people who are required to perform marriages are state employees. When states have included these protections spelling out that churches don't have to perform same sex marriages, it's just to calm the fears of those who have drunk the Kool Aid served up by NOM in their commercials. The constitution already protects this right. If, however, a church has a waterfront pavilion (not their sanctuary) that they rent to the public for lots of nonreligious purposes and get a tax break for doing so, and they refuse to rent to a lesbian couple who want to have a civil union ceremony there (not a wedding, and the church is not officiating), the church will get sued. Here's the solution for that church: don't rent to the public and don't take a tax break, because the public includes gay people. That is non discrimination law.

justsayin Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------

> So would that include respecting the right of
> churches who believe that homosexuality is wrong
> to opt out of performing same-sex marriage
> ceremonies?
> Would that choice be allowed, even though it
> probably won't be well liked?

Churches pick and choose whom they marry *now.* They are guaranteed that right by the 1st Amendment.

That is not what marriage equality is about, but that's how the religious reich makes it sound.

Here's the thing. Churches have a *courtesy right* from the state to perform legally binding marriages. They even have to cite it ("By the power vested in me by the State of XYZ ...). The marriage is not legal without a piece of paper from the state. Same-sex marriage rights are about the ability to get that piece of paper.

In Europe, you can have 20 church weddings ... but if you don't have the registry (civil) wedding, it isn't legal. Even Prince William and the Duchess of Cambridge had to have the registry wedding after their big ceremony for it to count. I am getting to the point where I wholeheartedly concur with this; take *churches* out of the marriage business.

Why should the 1st Amendment rights of one church (e.g., the Mormons, as with Prop 8) be inserted into law ... thus tromping on the 1st Amendment rights of open and accepting churches to perform legally binding same-sex marriages?

Hi RP. It's good to know you're back!

To me, people like that pastor bring Hannah Arendt's expression, "the banality of evil" to mind.

By asserting that 'all positions are equal,' the pastor essentially remains passive in the face of injustice and encourages us to do the same. How can people be such knuckleheads?

Her tone of smug stupidity is the frosting on the cake.

Great response from you!

Well, yes, justsayin, people have the right to their own opinions, however ridiculous, pathetic and bigoted they may be. That does not mean these opinions should be enforced or made unilateral.

Having the right to express their idiocy doesn't mean we have to respect them, it just means they have the right to have their own views and opinions.

In the recent words of John Kerry, "In America, people have the right to be stupid." True, that. Doesn't mean I like it or anyone else has to like it either, but equality either applies across the board or it's not equality.

That does not mean that discrimination against homosexual citizens or anyone else is OK, it's not. Legally, any adult US Citizen should have the right to the same civil rights across the board, including legal marriage anywhere in the country and the same benefits and protections against discrimination any other group of citizens enjoy.

Forcing churches to perform unions they are ideologically opposed to, well, that would be pretty much the same as the way things are now the other direction. They have the right to be prejudiced, idiotic bigots if they desire. The views and beliefs of various religious organizations are not the law, thank goodness!

I also agree that it would be wrong to force churches to perform marriages they're opposed to, as it's their right to be bigots if they desire. The issue is when those churches impose their beliefs on everyone by getting things like Prop 8 passed.

Agreed, the whole Prop 8 thing was insane. Individual religious views should NOT be be allowed to be imposed on the rest of the population - SO wrong and against the constitution!

Hopefully the Supreme Court will strike it down sometime soon. Did I mention SO incredibly, pathetically wrong?!!

Please, being open-minded doesn't mean you have to agree with others, it just means they have the right to believe whatever they want, regardless of how stupid it may be and whether or not they choose to believe the earth is floating on the back of a giant disc on the back of a turtle (love Terry Pratchett, if that's what you were referencing!).

People also have the right to believe that Joseph Smith saw God and translated golden plates and that they should donate ridiculous amounts of time and money to the LDS church. As John Kerry recently said, "Americans have the right to be stupid." Yep, we do, all of us.

When belief changes to behavior that impacts others, that's when the law steps in. Huge difference and the finer points of that fine line will continue to be debated for years.

Also, btw, picking your nose and doing gross things, well, that's not biological orientation, that's just disgusting and bad manners, not even close to the same category. It falls into the "general courtesy and consideration of others," group, not biologically mandated sexual orientation. To compare it to homosexuality is ridiculous.

Regarding Gay Marriage - homosexuality is not a behavior, or a belief, or a theory, it's a biological imperative. Gay marriage is about civil rights and equality, end of story. Less than 50 years ago it was illegal for interracial couples to marry; members of interracial couples still experience discrimination and harassment, sometimes violently. Less than 100 years ago women couldn't vote. Should we discriminate against people with red hair, or blue eyes?

Just because you personally (using the generic you here, in case it's not obvious) find homosexual attraction disgusting doesn't mean that it's not real and that those who do are somehow less than you are. Nor does it mean that they should be barred from the rights of any other citizen.

I have female friends who are married to men I personally find disgusting. Does that mean their marriage shouldn't be valid? How ridiculous would that be? One of my younger brothers spent 11 years married to an idiotic bimbo I couldn't stand (they are no longer together). Did that make their marriage any less valid? Again, how ridiculous and how insecure do you have to be to believe that?

Regardless of one's beliefs on homosexuality, to expect those beliefs to be imposed on the population as a whole because of your or any other groups religious views is wrong and a civil rights violation. No matter what some may believe, two men or two women getting married only diminishes a heterosexual marriage if those in the marriage believe it does and that's on them, not the gay couple.

Bigotry is bigotry, regardless of the justification. Yes, I feel pretty strongly about this and no, I'm not gay.

It drives me crazy when people misuse this term (and a lot of others). Being open-minded does NOT mean that a person does not have convictions. It does not mean a person must adopt any new idea presented to him/her. It means that a person doesn't automatically reject new ideas because they don't fit into his/her existing belief system. It means not automatically saying, "No."

It is not "closed-minded" to be able to recognize closed-mindedness in others.

People misuse "judgmental" in the same way. It's not judgmental to be able to recognize flaws or wrongdoing in others. It's judgmental to draw conclusions about the worth of a person based on limited information, to say that because So-and-So did X, So-and-So is a "bad person." We can acknowledge that someone did something wrong and simultaneously admit that we don't know everything about the situation, even admit that we may be mistaken about the few facts we have.

Dude, you are like Batman, but with no money or gadgets. ;)

I love someone who is willing to speak up for what's right, even if you have to take crap for doing so. Keep up the good fight!



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 03/20/2013 02:02AM by twojedis.

Wow, I don't usually respond to these types of posts. When you start comparing persons with differing view points with "serial killers", "Taliban and the oppression they enforce on women" and "Hitler", you lose credibility right off. It doesn't matter what side of the argument your are on. You automatically demonized (directly or indirectly) whom ever you disagreed with.

Ron Paul I think had the logical and constitutional solution to most of this issue. Where does the government have any business getting involved with the marriage issue. It is primarily a religious ordinance, let the church decide who they are going to marry. Let the state stay out. The state should treat us no different if we are married or not. (Hope I didn't misrepresent Ron Paul)

Homosexuality is a behavior. Not all behavior is protected by the constitution, like things that hurt others. What two chicks, two dudes, two of the opposite gender do behind closed doors is behavior. When you take it out from behind closed doors problems start. And some behavior people don't want to associate with and don't want to be around. Example.

I pick my nose. Some people find that offensive. I have to do something with the stuff I pick out of my nose. Sometimes I eat it and sometimes I wipe it where ever. So some people don't want to associate with me. The don't want me in their clubs, like the boy scouts. They don't want their kids to be compelled to sleep in a tent with a booger eater. They don't hate me, they just find my behavior something they want to disassociate with. Should I label them, and call them "boogerphopics"?

Correct me if I am wrong, but I believe the whole open minded, closed minded issue was brought on by gay right advocates to discredit religious organizations. So of course they are going to respond to what is "defined" as closed minded. This is a what came first argument - the chicken or the egg.

Live long and prosper. I have boogers to pick (in my own room) (and behind closed doors of course),(I try not to offend my neighbors).

rando Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Wow, I don't usually respond to these types of
> posts. When you start comparing persons with
> differing view points with "serial killers",
> "Taliban and the oppression they enforce on women"
> and "Hitler", you lose credibility right off. It
> doesn't matter what side of the argument your are
> on. You automatically demonized (directly or
> indirectly) whom ever you disagreed with.

+100

Like it or not, there are folks who disagree with gay marriage for reasons other than hatred, homophobia, or a wish to deny human rights. It certainly feels good to demonize your opponents, but it degrades the validity of your position. Ask any Mormon who insists that all of us left the church because we hated it and could not live up to its standards.

If you honestly feel this is appropriate rhetoric for a discussion of government sanction of homosexual marriage in the US, what meaningful opposition can you offer for the treatment of homosexuals in Iran, Mauritania, the Republic of Sudan, Saudi Arabia and Yemen? Are they even MORE like Hitler?

http://www.atlantaprogressivenews.com/interspire/news/2011/08/31/(ips)-five-nations-execute-homosexuals-two-more-considering-it.html

Perhaps I overshot the mark by choosing some of the more extreme examples of people who directly take away rights of others. I asked "where is the line?"

Also, I find your argument a bit hypocritical after you compare homosexuality to eating boogers.

Also, sexuality is more than a behavior. It is part of a persons identity.

People can identify as homosexual without ever acting on their sexual desires...just ask homosexuals in TSCC.

rando Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------

> Homosexuality is a behavior. Not all behavior is
> protected by the constitution, like things that
> hurt others. What two chicks, two dudes, two of
> the opposite gender do behind closed doors is
> behavior. When you take it out from behind closed
> doors problems start. And some behavior people
> don't want to associate with and don't want to be
> around. Example.
>
> I pick my nose. Some people find that offensive.
> I have to do something with the stuff I pick out
> of my nose. Sometimes I eat it and sometimes I
> wipe it where ever. So some people don't want to
> associate with me. The don't want me in their
> clubs, like the boy scouts. They don't want their
> kids to be compelled to sleep in a tent with a
> booger eater. They don't hate me, they just find
> my behavior something they want to disassociate
> with. Should I label them, and call them
> "boogerphopics"?


Your first assumption is that homosexuality is a behavior. That is incorrect. Is blonde hair a behavior? How about club feet, cleft palate, Down Suyndrome, intelligence? Th evidence is showing that same sex attraction is not a choice, even the church's Mormons & Gays website indicates that.

Making out in public is a behavior, whether you are homosexual or heterosexual or not.

Your booger analogy is a bad one. Picking boogers spreads germs and can make other people sick, and it's clearly a behavior. There are plenty of things that go on in public that I'd rather not see. So what if someone picks boogers, wears odd clothing, sings while walking down the street, doesn't match their clothes, or is a messy eater? Social norms keep these things in check, or they don't.

What does that have to do with basic human rights? Equality for all.

Well said, twojedis.

twojedis Wrote:
Th evidence is showing
> that same sex attraction is not a choice, even the
> church's Mormons & Gays website indicates that.
>
> Making out in public is a behavior, whether you
> are homosexual or heterosexual or not.
>
> Your booger analogy is a bad one.
>
> What does that have to do with basic human rights?
> Equality for all.

Just a few notes of opposition.

It's perhaps wise to grant some latitude in the world of analogies. By their nature, analogies will never _exactly_ fit the context of any given argument. That's why they're analogies.

Rando's analogy better applies if we agree that his desire to pick his nose is not a choice. He was born with it. However, at the point where his finger enters his nose, his orientation becomes a behavior, and (like it or not) that behavior is offensive to some.

It may also be wise to limit our insistence on "Human Rights" to more significant areas like liberty and freedom from government oppression. People in North Korean prison camps would likely be confused by visitors arriving to insist they be granted the right to same-sex marriage. But labeling gay marriage as a human right insists that opposition to it is tantamount to things like incarceration without due process or torture. These are just not in the same category. And if it is truly a human right, churches would be required to perform gay marriages. It would be a crime for them to do otherwise. No, gay marriage should be argued as a _civil_ right.

Europe has struggled with this same issue, but agrees that gay marriage is not a human right.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2117920/Gay-marriage-human-right-European-ruling-torpedoes-Coalition-stance.html

Tall Man, Short Hair Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
But
> labeling gay marriage as a human right insists
> that opposition to it is tantamount to things like
> incarceration without due process or torture.

Nope. It's a *civil rights* issue. It's about equality under the law.

Which of your basic civil rights (as marriage has been called by the USSC as recently as 1967) is it okay to put up for popular vote? After all, you appear to be okay with that happening to an unpopular group. What happens when *you* are part of the unpopular group?

God, don't they teach civics anymore? Sometimes I think I'm the only person left who ever read Madison's Federalist No. 10, in which he talks about how tyrannical majorities (which are, by their own nature, temporary in any event) should not be allowed to vote on the rights of the minority.

Tall Man, Short Hair said:

"No, gay marriage should be argued as a _civil_ right."

By definition, civil rights and human rights are not interchangeable. At least legally speaking.

elee Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Tall Man, Short Hair said:
>
> "No, gay marriage should be argued as a _civil_
> right."
>
> By definition, civil rights and human rights are
> not interchangeable. At least legally speaking.

Agreed. That's what I was trying to say in my post. It certainly has a broader emotional appeal to claim gay marriage as a human right, but that path will likely never pan out. Nor should it. It should he argued--both for and against--in the arena of civil rights. Or as suggested by an earlier poster, attempt to remove marriage from under the purview of government entirely.

You are using a false equivalency, a behavior does not = a physical attribute.

rando Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------

> Homosexuality is a behavior. Not all behavior is
> protected by the constitution, like things that
> hurt others. What two chicks, two dudes, two of
> the opposite gender do behind closed doors is
> behavior. When you take it out from behind closed
> doors problems start. And some behavior people
> don't want to associate with and don't want to be
> around.

Sorry, but I call bullshit. One's sexual orientation is part of who one is. Is one without sexual orientation if one is a virgin? No. Is one without sexual orientation if one is without a partner? No.

Your sexual orientation is not just "behavior." You cannot "pray away the gay" any more than you can pray to be gay if you're straight. That's just not how it works.

If you are offended by a same-sex couple holding hands in public, I hope you're equally riled by a straight couple doing the same thing.

I posted the blog that PapaKen linked to the other day on my fb page bout the brother who got turned down for a mission because of how he felt about gays--and my extremely TBM aunt asked me to give my input about how I felt about it. We've had a long discussion about this anyway and she listens. I know she still hopes I'll go back to the lds church someday (she is my mother's only sister and only surviving family member). So--I've typed 3 long pages to her this morning--so not ready to address this more today. It zaps me of my energy.

Anyway--I am always SO THRILLED when I see a new post from you. Come and go all you like. I'm just glad to see you.



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 03/20/2013 09:43AM by cl2.

RP, I'm glad you're back. xx



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 03/20/2013 10:23AM by quebec.

I hate the "you're bigoted for pointing out my bigotry" trope. It's absurd. It's trying to cloak hatred in righteousness.

Calling out bigotry is speaking truth to power. Sitting silently in the face of bigotry is the same as consenting to it.

I love threads like this because they reveal who is still anti-gay, anti equal rights.

I am a huge supporter of equal rights, don't care how many straw men get set up in my way. Call me a bigot for hating bigots, whatever...
Equal rights will prevail in the not very distant future.

Tolerance can never "tolerate" intolerance - that destroys the very meaning of the term "tolerance". Any person who strives for tolerance must fight bigotry.

Open mindedness is often overrated. Should we be open minded about the possibility that the earth is sitting on the back of a turtle? No. Should we be open to the possibility that rape is benificial? Or that handling poisonous snakes will prove our worth in God's eyes? That's for crazy people. Likewise, the possibility that basic civil rights should not be given to gay people is patently absurd and does not deserve a second thought. When the people railing about the immorality of gay marriage are doing so because they don't want a wrathful mythological figure to destroy the earth with plagues and fire, I don't think they deserve the time of day.

Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 03/20/2013 03:08PM by daughterofperdition.

Being open minded means being able to evaluate new information and judging the information based on merit, then being able to change beliefs as the new info warrants.

Saying "gays are evil because the Bible says so" then accepting no other information on the subject is being closed minded.

Saying "I have read the bible and understand where it claims gays are evil, but the evidence I see in the world around me contradicts what the bible says, maybe the bible is not right in this regard" is being more open minded.

I KNEW you'd come crawling back. :)

Re being open minded - my father used to say that some people think they're being open-minded, but they really just have a hole in their head.

Whatever that may mean, I admire anyone who looks at an issue (such as gay rights) and tries to be fair about it, even to the point of changing his/her views. It takes some effort to do that, but it's worth it. Sen. Portman (OH) comes to mind.

I admire even more someone who rejects the status quo in favor of being fair right up front. Emmett, the younger brother of some gay siblings, who refused to serve an LD$ mission because he would not "preach" against marriage equality, comes to mind. I wish that at 17-18, I had had that kind of courage, and I hope his story inspires peers to do the same.

In science being open minded is hard because it takes mountains of evidence to change old theories - think ptolemy and newton - and no few pieces are sufficient to do so. And that is GOOD! Otherwise we would be questioning science every time a first year chemistry students gets a bad result on a lab. Morality is even harder because scientific "evidence" doesn't exist. No amount of research can ever determine if torture is immoral. AND we are all moral experts - no appeal to someone who has years of morality training should pursuade us that it is moral to torture children for fun. (Some people can be persuaded, but they shouldn't be!) We only have appeals to empathy and pointing out hypocracy and other fallacies to pursuade opponents. I love a good argument, and if the points are strong enough I do change my mind - obviously, I left Mormonism - but being open minded usually means more than admitting you're wrong when the evidence is stacked against you. It usually means having weak convictions to start with, and that is only good when the evidence for a proposition is lacking, or shallow.

What is good is toleration. In other words, the ability to acknowledge that people have different things they consider evidence for their positions, (not that all are valid), and that all voices should be heard and no civil or human rights should be withheld from such people, no matter how repugnant or crazy their beliefs.