Comments on FL Amendment 2
So one of my friends from work posted this on Facebook:
I am excited about the outcome of the presidential election. It appears that the US is ready to try something different and maybe even progress as a more open society. Unfortunately, yesterday we here in FL helped to define what is becoming our country's biggest civil rights issue going ( Read more... )
I am excited about the outcome of the presidential election. It appears that the US is ready to try something different and maybe even progress as a more open society. Unfortunately, yesterday we here in FL helped to define what is becoming our country's biggest civil rights issue going ( Read more... )
First I'll say you're right- characterizing people's objection to a homosexual lifestyle based on it being "icky" is probably not sufficient to addressing the real feelings that many people hold. I'm sure plenty of folks who oppose the gay lifestyle do so in spite of their own indifference and defer instead to the dogmas of their religion or other cultural tradition. This troubles me even more.
Your primary response to my post seems to be that I and my ilk who argue for tolerance are, in fact, ourselves intolerant of those with dissenting views. You've got me on that one, to an extent. I'm perfectly happy to listen and learn from people with conflicting opinions if they can make a sound argument for *why* their views are valid or helpful. So here's where we'll be unable to respectfully disagree- I can't accept "it's just what I believe" as a valid argument. I respond to that with "why?"
If the source of the opinion is some doctrine- be it religious, cultural, etc, then it's even more important to ask yourself why this tenant of that culture is reasonable or rational. Other forms of discrimination such as racism and sexism were once widely accepted as valid beliefs in our culture, and although there are still those who hold these beliefs they are largely not tolerated in our society today. I know you know this intellectually, so if you can explain to me why legal discrimination against homosexuals and other couples that are not married is justified then that's fine- we can talk about that.
The one other thing I'd like to point out is that amendment 2 didn't just define marriage, it went further:
no other legal union that is treated as marriage or the substantial equivalent thereof shall be valid or recognized
That language seems to me to be a preemptive move to disallow things like civil-unions.
Reply
Leave a comment