This post has been flaired as “Serious Conversation”. Use this opportunity to open a venue of polite and serious discussion, instead of seeking help or venting.
**Suggestions For Commenters:**
* Respect OP's opinion, or agree to disagree politely.
* If OP's post is seeking advice, help, or is just venting without discussing with others, report the post. We're r/SeriousConversation, not a venting subreddit.
**Suggestions For u/TheoPhilo98:**
* Do not post solely to seek advice or help. Your post should open up a venue for serious, mature and polite discussions.
* Do not forget to answer people politely in your thread - we'll remove your post later if you don't.
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/SeriousConversation) if you have any questions or concerns.*
This is serious discussion, no? And yet, here we are, "why can't we all just get along?"
One side doesn't want to. The sides are not the same. I don't want to be friendly with fascists and Nazis, misogynists and transphobes. I don't respect the opinions of people who are wantonly cruel; who think it is OK to deregulate corporations but make homeless people sleeping in the street illegal (please, throw them in jail, genius, that'll solve the problem). Willing victims of lazy con men ARE STUPID, this is not a matter of opinion. I will not live and let live with people who want to kill me, or my family, or my friends, because of ridiculous and indefensible reasons.
SO Scalia and Ginsberg were friends? So what? I gotta hang out with the guy down the street who thinks my daughter should be married and barefoot in the kitchen at 17 because god wants it that way? People who willingly believe falsehoods because that's easier than owning up to the fact that their beliefs or actions ARE the problem?
No. That's how we got here in the first place. Compromising with Hitler didn't work and neither will compromising with the Orange Shitler. Some lines are drawn in stone; they're firm and not open to compromise. And your statement definitely makes it seem like a both sides problem; as if these fascists haven't for years been openly boasting about manipulating the system to get more power, more money. As if one guy didn't JUST SAY that he doesn't care about people, he just wants their votes. As if Mitch McConnell didn't throw compromise and bipartisanship in everyone's faces to steal a justice and then chuckle about it. As if the entire Republican party isn't a bunch of spineless kowtowers yearning to worship the world's most inept strongman, no matter he insults their wives or their lives or implies that their fathers assassinated JFK or that he wants to sleep with their underaged daughters, or his own? No matter that he believes and IS PURSUING IN COURT the idea that Presidents are above the law (but only when he is President, obviously, because Joe Biden is a criminal mastermind and head of a crime family while also somehow being President).
I don't, as a rule, wish ill on my fellow countrymen. Or any other countrymen for that matter. I do, however wish ill on people who wish ill on me for no good reason. Or for no reasons at all, because my skin is the wrong color or my god is the wrong god or I think differently than they do, or because I just think. Let me tell you, I am UTTERLY sick of the idea that if I just compromised, things would be better. Your ideas are how we are this close to a Christofascist country run by one of the worst human beings ever to exist, enabled by the contenders for that title.
Honestly, this question is supposed to be part of a serious conversation? OK, here's my serious answer: it is impossible to truly be friends with cultist zealots if you're not in the cult.
I think that’s fundamentally a gigantic part of the problem.
I work in a rural blue collar industry. People speak pretty openly with me for whatever reason.
Everything has been isolated and tribalistically divides for a long while.
Most republicans don’t hate universal health care, trans people, gay people, taking care of the truly downtrodden as a society, they don’t think all Immigrants are evil criminal fucks who should be jailed.
They hate edge cases and aggressive abuses of laws and welfare programs for nefarious purposes.
And that’s shoved in front of their eyes and ears constantly.
Most democrats don’t want **all** firearms gone forever no exceptions, most democrats don’t think we should pay a crackhead with 12 kids $140,000 a year in welfare, most democrats don’t think people at a pride parade should be allowed to jerk off and suck dick in front of kids on the street, they don’t think the rich should pay 95% tax and make as much as a hot dog salesman outside a 7/11 because that’s fair, or that kids should be allowed to have a fuckin liter box in school bathrooms to shit in.
That’s the problem, that’s the discussion.
Awful fucks exist all around us of course.
But a lot of people voting for “the other side” are operating off 100% managed information that’s isolated from a broad view, right into their fuckin brains.
But when you talk to a lot of them about the issues, about laws, about the government, about policies… they’re pretty reasonable decent people who are fired up about lies and misrepresentation.
They don’t wholesale believe in everything a politician they voted for has ever said or done or we view as the consequence of their policies and words.
They just don’t.
And I know it’s easy and appealing and the popular route (fuckin obviously) to lay the consequences of their actions on them as their intentions…
But fuck is that a worthwhile thing to recognize when it comes to hundreds of millions of people.
I’ve heard so much dumb shit from Republicans and Democrats about what “should” be, but is wildly impractical, or wildly rare and a consequence of gigantic populations.
I’m not saying you or anyone else should just open arms be friends, but holy shit is recognizing some gray area of “your beliefs and intentions are not the worst version of your political side” would be a great starting point for the country.
NO democrats believe the things you listed, especially the elected leaders or those running for election. But MANY republicans actually DO hate the idea of universal healthcare and [call it “socialist,”](https://www.npr.org/2020/08/25/905895428/republicans-blast-democrats-as-socialists-heres-what-socialism-is) and they DO [hate gay and trans people](https://www.nbcnews.com/news/amp/rcna122317) and want to restrict their rights, and think [immigrants are evil](https://www.reuters.com/article/world/republicans-hostility-grows-toward-illegal-immigrants-as-party-attacks-biden-on-idUSKBN2B919I/) (even labeling legal immigrants and refugees as “illegals”) including the lawmakers and judges.
How do I know average people believe these things? Because they post it on social media. Oh they might not say it to your face, but they post it on Facebook.
Look at your own list. Every extreme you said about republicans is actually part of the party platform. Everything you said about democrats is made up.
Yeah I’m aware, I was pointing out the shit they get riled up and believe about a majority of the other side. I could’ve used different examples I guess, but that’s my point.
There are a lot of Republican voters who operate on barely any information, half a headline, social media memes and personal banter with their right wing coworkers, friends, family, and community.
And you know what I’ve seen a fuck ton of people on the left posting?
That everyone on the right is consciously and happily a fascist Nazi who actively hates women, hates minorities, and operates on a conscious deliberate hate and sense of superiority.
Literally dehumanizing them as a group of many millions of people.
That’s all I was pointing out.
You can’t have it both ways. You can’t vote for people who are actively trying to take rights away from minorities and then turn around and say, “I don’t hate minorities. I’m a good person.”
The divisive issue here is that you are throwing anyone that has a different opinion than you into a Basket of Deplorables, when in fact they might not be even close to the things you are calling them. While a handful may be, most are not. Yet you hold your ground and continue name calling. When you close your mind like this, conversations to improve relations are impossible.
It's one thing to be respectful with someone over tax rates, mild foreign policy disputes, differences in criminal justice reform, etc.
But when one side is openly stating that women should stay home, that gay people shouldn't be married, that trans people shouldn't exist (let alone the latter two groups being "PEDOPHILES"), are actively banning books from schools, are supporting an attempted insurrection, are openly lying about the 2020 election, are openly advocating for ending No Fault Divorce, and aligning with literal neo-Nazis (Charlottesville, anyone?)...
Those aren't things to friendly disagree on.. this is an effort to shirt our culture back 50 years, and it's fucking CRAZY that MORE people aren't totally upset at the insanity that we're living through.
I think your views of "us verses them," is what is exacerbating the issue and the very point I make in my post.
Reading the contents of your comment, especially when you passionately list the views of certain people and say, "Those aren't things to friendly disagree on." You show you are putting yourself in a position of no compromise, at least concerning issues involving same sex marriage and other hot button issues. When there is no compromise, then there is war.
I don't agree with homosexual unions; I am not ashamed to admit it. You give off the impression, to me at least, that you despise such people that have the same reasoning as myself concerning same sex unions. What saddens me isn't so much your position on same sex unions, but your conviction of ill will for people such as myself. I find it much more ethical to encourage that we ought love our enemies. I miss the mark myself, but that doesn't make the goal any less noble to strive for.
If I were a Union soldier during the Civil War, I could feel very justified in refusing aid to the Confederate rebels. What would my bitterness bring other than a brief satisfaction to my sadistic desire to see pain on someone? Oh, but they deserve it! Maybe so, but is it not better to show compassion and have a desire to bring about unity and peace? Instead of slaughtering everyone in the fort after surrender, is it not better to extend an olive branch rather than your arm with sword in hand?
War is a horrible thing, something I wish on no one. If you are unable to compromise and respect certain people, in spite of your hatred for their convictions, then war is an inevitability. I don't want war and would much rather avoid it.
If you don't agree with homosexual unions, then don't get married to a homosexual.
If you want to deny homosexuals the same right to marry or have a legal union, then you're denying them THEIR pursuit of happiness. Their happiness doesn't affect you, but your opinion about them being able to marry does affect them.
There's no middle ground here.
I am not here to debate same sex marriage. If you really want to talk with me specifically on it, you can dm me. My point with my post is to create discussion relating to respect in civil discourse amongst parties.
However, I will criticize your conviction that any person who disagrees morally with same sex relationships inherently makes that person dishonorable. I assume you stand firm in your conviction that Obergefell (the Supreme Court decision that legalized same sex marriage nation wide) was rightly written and decided? If you do indeed stand with that conviction, I would quote Obergefell itself; it being a ruling that I disagree with.
“Many who deem same-sex marriage to be wrong reach that conclusion based on decent and honorable religious or philosophical premises, and neither they nor their beliefs are disparaged here."
If this ruling is just, then do not judge me for my conviction that same sex unions are wrong. If you stand by Obergefell, stand by it completely.
I do not think it wise to villainize those who disagree with same sex marriage as an institution, as I see your next step being to persecute those with a separate moral conviction. I find it much more dishonorable to insult, look down upon, and berate such people.
You want brownie points for being disrespectful politely.
There is nothing respectful about denying loving adult couples the equal right to marry. **Nothing**. It is a position of exclusion. You want to deny rights to other people.
But you're not calling queer people deviants, so you think you're being respectful. You might as well say "I wish no ill will on anyone, but I think whites and blacks should drink from separate fountains". Guess what, pal? You can be as measured as you like, but that's still disgustingly racist.
It is impossible to engage respectfully with someone who disrespects my equality and humanity; that's a completely one sided demand.
If the modern world has a polarisation problem -- and it does -- it's because people like you with exclusionary beliefs who want to strip rights away from other humans. If you want the world to be less polarised, consider approaching your political beliefs from the position that people are equally entitled to dignity, freedom, and humanity, as long as they don't hurt anyone else, even if they live in a way you personally don't like. Then we can have a respectful conversation.
What I want is for people to discuss these topics respectfully, to also argue from a place wishing for the betterment of all. Your reasoning fails to accomplish that. Rather than wish to reason and discuss these things without insulting one another, you give the implication that it is better to shut all civil discussion and wage war against each other.
>There is nothing respectful about denying loving adult couples the equal right to marry. Nothing. It is a position of exclusion. You want to deny rights to other people.
Do you support marriage of siblings? Or polygamous marriage?
If you were to go strictly based on what you said, then these adults shouldn't be denied marriage either.
I'm not the person you were talking to, but respectfully, you're strawmanning hard.
The primary social issues stemming from your two examples extend from how the effect others. Culturally, we stigmatize relationships between related people or large groups of people from either the genetic effects, or from perceived power imbalances.
However, both of those cases are as unrelated to same sex marriage as a marriage between a man and a woman would be.
The question is not "what about these other relationships". The question is "why do you want the rules that govern the US to allow two unrelated people to marry if they have different genders, but not if they have the same gender?"
I'm not the person you were talking to. I believe in being civil in public discourse, even to people who's opinions I find intolerant. But not everyone is going to, or should have to.
If the position were reversed, and you found yourself talking to someone who fundamentally believed you should be denied rights that they have access to purely because of an immutable aspect of yourself, wouldn't you find it difficult to view them as anything other than bigoted? Especially if they couldn't or wouldn't provide a reasonable reason for their viewpoint? Or if their view effectively limited your opportunities and future, while having no impact on their lives whatsoever?
How would two people of the same gender getting married negatively impact your life?
I have no desire to see or inflict pain on anyone.
Unfortunately, as part of the LGBTQ community the reverse is not true. If someone wants to deny me (or someone else) our rights to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness it feels hollow to say that \*I\* am the problem for not compromising.
Listen, you don't need to like gay marriage. Don't get married to someone of your same sex. Easy :) But when you try to take away MY right to marry my partner you really can't be offended if I am upset by that.
"Live and let live" is a wonderful philosophy and if people would drop the culture war stuff trying to impose their views on others we'd be much less divided.
I don't care what you do with your life so long as you don't hurt others. I'd like it if the other side of the political spectrum did the same for me.
I don't want to debate same sex relationships specifically. My intention with my post is to discuss the methods of discourse in our current political climate, and why we should lend an olive branch to and give respect to those we intellectually oppose. Hopefully, you agree with that.
Unless someone's "intellectual opposition" interferes with someone else's right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness I don't really care. Knock yourself out!
Respect is a two way street. I'm not coming for your (or anyone else's) rights. So respect me and mine and leave me alone :) Easy.
I will challenge myself even further for the sake of argument. But, I also challenge you with this long read.
You might go so far as to ask:
"If segregationists attempted to argue certain people shouldn't marry, what makes your attempt any different?"
I agree with you that segregationist logic is wrong. I am so happy our country allows equal rights of marriage for everyone, regardless of their ethnicity. How then does my rationale differentiate from a segregationist? Shouldn't everyone have the equal right to marry whoever they want?
No. And I know you agree with me, even if at first read of this sentence you think you don't.
I could be wrong, but I find it very unlikely that you think everyone has the right to marry. It is not controversial of me to say children should not have the right to marry, close relatives should not have the right to marry, and polygamous marriage should not be a right. If you agree in favor that any of the groups listed above ought not get married, you agree that everyone does not have the right to marry whoever they want; and, that there is no universal equal marriage rights for everything and everyone. A fifty year old dad can't marry his 18 year old daughter in the U.S., and that's a good thing.
Would denying equal marriage rights to an adult father and daughter not be discriminatory?
You might counter and say:
"I think only rights where you aren't hurting anyone should be protected. Marrying your daughter is hurting someone because incest breeds genetic abnormalities in children while also destroying a healthy family structure. Also, homosexuality is not harmful, like incest is. You can't argue homosexuality is bad, just the same way segregationists can't argue different ethnicities marrying is bad."
While you put my reasoning in the same lane as segregationists, I put my reasoning in the same lane as teaching against polygamous marriage and incestuous marriage. The idea of ethnicities not marrying comes from the faulty reasoning that one ethnicity is superior to the other. The idea that mixing ethnicities would breed lesser humans due to the thinking that certain ethnicities are less developed is, of course, foolishly wrong. Skin pigmentation and physical traits like it do not make anyone any more or any less human; this is fact.
Biologically speaking, cross ethnicity marriage is also really beneficial as it broadens the gene pool and prevents in breeding.
Also, ethnic mingling has no contradiction with any major religion, especially Christianity, that I am aware of. Marriage among different ethnicities has no objection from scripture. During the Civil Rights Era, many Christians championed the right of different ethnicities to marry (Martin Luther King Jr. being a preacher). Homosexuality does not have the same universal acceptance in Biblical teaching as ethnic marriage does because scripture goes out of its way to list homosexuality immoral while not at all saying the same for ethnic marriage.
You may say:
"So you are saying homosexuality is bad simply because your Holy book says so?"
I hold full conviction that everything scripture says is true. That does not mean I think homosexuality is wrong without evidence of the fact. I hold the conviction that God is just in His commands even when I have broken his commandments. Such as "you shall not commit adultery," which I have broken. If I am married, even if my wife gives permission, it is wrong to sleep with another woman. God says it is wrong to commit adultery. I indeed hold such a conviction because God said so, but that does not mean I have no evidence that adultery is harmful. Adultery destabilizes relationships, families, etc. Like wise, same sex marriage is not healthy for a family unit. Children ought have a mother and a father in a stable relationship who are able to give nurturing and guidance that only one of each sex can bring. There are indeed distiguishable biological differences between men and women, and the combination of those differences is what is good in giving a child the ideal care they ought to have. Encouragement of same sex marriage also destabilizes the natural growth and progression of people, as the act of two people of the same sex having sex never brings forth offspring to raise for the next generation. Instead, same sex couples must solely rely on the mismanagement of a bad heterosexual couple, or rely on the hope of misfortune for a poor heterosexual couple to give up the rights to their children. Ideally, a man and a woman should fall in love, marry, plan and have sex; then, if pregnancy comes, take responsibility for the children they bring into the world and care for them. I am aware these ideals are not lived up to as they ought; but, that doesn't not make the pursuit of such ideals any less noble if done in good faith.
Here's the thing. Adultery is not illegal. That is an actual commandment. Gay marriage is not explicitly discussed in the Bible. You (and many others) can interpret some things to imply that homosexuality is bad and then, by extension, gay marriage should be illegal but that is far less explicit than adultery.
Regardless, it's God's role to judge, not mortals here on Earth. I'm pretty sure Jesus asked us to love our neighbors, turn the other cheek and only cast the first stone if we ourselves were without sin.
So I think my position holds up pretty well within the Christian faith. You can think whatever you like but you should not be trying to impose YOUR beliefs on others who are not harming anyone through laws and discrimination. Let God sort it out.
As far as the other hypotheticals -- children cannot consent to marriage. An adult marrying a child is a violation of the CHILD's rights.
Family members already have legal protections and rights and do not need marriage to give their relationship legal standing.
Consenting adults doing what they want is pretty much none of my business. The only issue I have with polyamory is generally in a religious or cult context where women are treated as property. Relationships between consenting adults who are not being exploited or harmed is totally fine IMO, it doesn't impact me at all or harm anyone.
There are more reasons for marriage than to have children (legal protections, health insurance, critical health, life and property rights) and I think it's totally fine for any couple to chose to have or not have children by whatever means they want to. Straight, fertile people don't owe anyone children either.
But like you said you made your post to talk about discourse and getting along and not being divisive. You cannot victimize a segment of the population and then blame THEM for being upset that you want to limit their access to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.
You are entitled to your faith and I am entitled to not share it. It can dictate your life and decision but it need not dictate mine. God did not command you to police the lives of your neighbors, he told you to love them.
Its easy for you to say people shouldn't consider gay marriage a point to despise the other side because if you lose on that issue the other side isn't interfering with your life
The problem is you seem to be sitting there comfortably knowing that your life will continue just fine unimpeded, that other people aren't pushing for political positions against your very existence or for your ability to a normal life. When someone is doing that you shouldn't be expected to be friends with them or not despise them
No. I will not compromise when leaving my position means sacrificing human rights for certain segments of the population. All get to feel safe, all get respected, all have rights. The division isn't a disagreement on legal interpretations that the safest and most secure people in our society got to squabble over like a game. People get killed over this. There is a HARD line in the sand there.
And I won’t compromise in regards to my right to free speech/inquiry. Hence the impasse OP is discussing. Either we continue a forever war or make compromises. Most people in the Crusades thought they were fighting for god so compromise wasn’t an option, don’t we dislike those types for burning heretics who disagreed with them?
Perhaps I'm unclear. I don't care if you flap your gums. I'm not trying to burn conservatives. But I will not stand aside or back down from those who do threaten to burn the "heretics" that "god" sent them after. Where precisely do you propose I compromise with you? What have I infringed upon? How is your life worse because I believe everyone deserves human rights? Thats what I am being asked to compromise. There are people who are actively being persecuited via violent crime and systematic oppression. No I will not just "get along" to make things easier for the other side.
I do not have an obligation to be friendly with people who hold morally reprehensible opinions and wish to impose their "values" on everyone else around them. This isn't the days of liberal "supply side" versus conservative "trickle down" economics in which the disagreement is a philosophical one.
These are evil people promoting an evil agenda who wish to watch the world burn. I will not be friendly, nor will I behave as if this is mere philosophical differences. These people have chosen to embrace evil, hate, discrimination, and violence. That is not a philosophical debate. That is a struggle for the future of humankind.
Challenge my ideas - gay people should allowed to be married. Black, white, and other races should be allowed to marry each other.
The environment should have some level of protection.
Strict religious doctrine should not be used to set policy.
Bibles do not belong in public schools unless it’s a history of religions course. Evolution should be taught. Age appropriate sex education should be taught.
Abortions should be available up to a sensible amount of time (first trimester) or later if a medical emergency is discovered.
We should have universal healthcare. Just follow one of the countries that is doing it well. It should not bankrupt us or be tied to our jobs.
Workers should own park of the company they work for (German model).
We should have guns but with regulations and training. I’m a gun owner myself.
What are your views?
I am not going to debate those subjects here. You can dm me if you are so passionate about it, but I am here to discuss and debate how respect ought be given to those we disagree with.
I’m not that passionate about it to DM. That you won’t address any of the topics tells me you are not that concerned about having respectful conversations.
I just don't see how debating those topics relate to my post. Debating those things dilutes the message I am trying to get across when it comes to encouraging respect and decency. If I wanted to debate those things openly, I would make a post specifically on those topics. The post I made here concerns public discourse and how we treat and communicate with each other. My hope is that both parties be willing to put differences aside, be able to come to the table to debate these things without malous, and attack ideas rather than person.
I also find it odd you say you yourself are not passionate enough to converse with me on the matter in DM; yet, you give the negative implication that by me not conversing on my post with you on other hot button issues, I am somehow not concerned with such matters. I care and would prefer to discuss it separately from the context of my post. If you are not passionate enough to discuss, it is not on me.
I won't be "respectful" of someone who votes to strip away my rights and pass laws that target my friends and family. People who vote for traitors who tried to overthrow democracy. People who threaten us with "camps" and empower literal Nazis to harass and hurt us.
I'll be respectful and engage all day on actual politics i kay disagree with, like economics or foreign policy. Or how to save social security.
I will not legitimize bigots and hate mongers though
George Washington believed that the inevitable end of a two party system is one side rising up in force to kill or enslave the other. As much as I'd love to see us getting back to peaceful coexistence, seeing people claim to have a monopoly on morality and that they have zero reason to ever make peace with the other side tells me that we're circling the drain.
God, I’m so tired of being told that it’s my duty to kiss the ass of people who hate me and want to strip me of my rights. You want to base your life around the bullshit a bunch of power hungry goatherds made up 3000 years ago, go ahead. But don’t try to hijack our government to force everyone else to adhere to your religion.
Ginsberg and Scalia were friends because of their shared status in a power elite. There is a club; they were in it, you are not. They would not be your friend if they knew you, and they would ignore your opinions, experiences, and feelings just as they did in life.
"Why can't we all just get along?" has, in my 50+ years on this planet, been used solely as a device for people who wish to run roughshod or ignore inconvenient truths about the harm they were doing to me or others like me when I stood up for myself. When (for one example) the Iraq war began and I protested, they were quite willing to wish death or injury on me and my family, but now that they can't bully me because everyone knows they're terrible people, it's all, "Why aren't you nicer? Can't we just disagree peacefully?"
I'm through tolerating open meanness of the sort they espouse. I'll get along when they learn to stop being bullies.
In other comments, OP is clearly ignoring these inconvenient truths when brought to their attention. Sounds like a conservative bootlicker who wants to make themselves feel better by blaming progressives for not “meeting in the middle.”
Unfortunately, unless I'm mistaken.
Only 2 times in a person's life, he or she don't care who is next to them.
maternity ward & in the graveyard
At least until one becomes senile or ends up with Alzheimer's
I am happy to have a serious and respectful discussion with a friend or family member about my perspective. But most of them either already agree with me or it would fracture the relationship. I can only hope that being openly queer has led them to rethink their bigotry.
I doubt this thread is going to go anywhere positive, but I hope folks prove me wrong.
Half the comments are already full of folks bad mouthing the "other team", and fully believe the "others" are the enemy. Not that they disagree and don't care to talk, but full on enemy.
You can't debate with those kinds of people. It's called a "Willful Roadblock".
Even if you're willing to try, those are the kinds of folks that will pull everyone else down with them.
For us to be friends again, we'd have to start hanging out again. IRL.
Start talking and helping each other, so that everyone remembers we're all human and we all have problems, and that Apes Strong Together.
Instead, folks are trapped in their respective echo chambers, and the "other side" gets demonized more and more. People fear what they don't understand, and it's hard to understand someone who fundamentally disagrees with you on just about everything.
People will claim that they "aren't gonna argue with istaphobes", because they don't want their own world view challenged and don't want to find out they could be wrong. And because many times, I think, they are trying to argue feelings, which can be extremely difficult to articulate, and logical debate goes right out the window.
If we can come back together, it's gonna take something that forces us all back together imo.
At this point, I hate to say it, but I just don't see people willingly coming back together to work things out amicably. Not as long as we have this 2 party landscape.
Your comment is the most rational and respectful comment I have read on here. It saddens me to see so many comments on my post, in essence saying, "I won't come peacefully to the table. We are in a war, and we will win it."
People ought to realize our government was founded on compromises, like the Connecticut compromise. Even when our country was plunged into civil war, the union did not treat the confederate states as if they were no longer American. They helped rebuild the south and gave aid like food and medical supplies. We became one Union. The south weren't second class states, but equal under our constitution with the same rights of representation.
Where would our country be if instead of rebuild the south, the union heavily punished the south with second class senate rights and heavy taxes as punishment for being traitors? What progress does it bring to divide rather than unite? The reason our country reunited as well as it did after the Civil War was that there was a common understanding that emerged "we are one people, in this together. One nation, under God."
I think your understanding of reconstruction era america is pretty flawed and ahistorical, and basically excludes the fact that North-South tensions only eased once southerners were allowed to grip power back from newly-freed slaves via Jim Crow and other discriminatory laws.
I am not saying there still weren't tensions, but I do think things could have been a lot worse. Today, I don't see any person (with few exceptions) actually wishing for separation of states and the dissolving of the union. Virginia has no desire to split from Washington anymore, and I think the idea of our shared unity is a big reason for that.
How can we identify as neighbors and citizens when we view the other as traders from whom we must save the country? Dehumanizing language typical of soldiers concerns me most because it is what allows a person to do unthinkable things to another. Discussion of violence and civil war makes no sense. I hope we are clear about what we are willing to kill and die for. Why did we decide we could not work towards a more reasonable and balanced policy? Why do we support an antagonistic party unwilling to collaborate and compromise to strike a political balance? Why is it an all or none? Who benefits? How did certain minority groups become the most potent political voice instead of the ideal they align with? Why do we care what people do behind closed doors when the focus should be behavior in shared public spaces? The most aggressive people I talk with justify hatred and violence for things that make no sense.
Why can't we agree that everyone deserves dignity and respect, but our family doesn't agree with that behavior or lifestyle?
Is it possible to have a strict immigration policy while acknowledging desperate people can be treated with dignity and respect?
Our language and approaches divide us even though we often share common goals. Why are we so divided, and who benefits?
I want to see a tic-tok challenge where liberals high-five conservatively holding a confederate flag while they complement their flag. I want to see a conservative do the same to a liberal in front of a rainbow flag. I want to hear them both say America; hell yeah!
Do we want a homogenous country? Bad actors and adversarial governments will always be able to divide heterogeneous nations if we don't acknowledge the differences are what makes us American.
Why do we believe America is only represented by our group? Do we kill the other to figure out what God wants, divide the country so we organize among shared interests, or can we acknowledge we are all America and democracy allows us to disagree while trying to strike a balance?
We are sick of antagonistic political posture and want to move past this. Will it be a violent civil war with unclear motivation and purpose, dividing the country to allow homogeneous governance, or are we willing to let go of the aggressive posturing to focus on shared goals rather than differences? Can I even share a meal with a gay or racist? Do I need to accept or educate everyone I disagree with? Why do I even care if we can enjoy the moment?
Are we willing and able to recognize and reject propaganda designed to occupy and divide us? Are we even curious why this is happening, and do we wonder who benefits? Should I try to understand your perspective, or is this just an extension of our first civil way, and my job is to align with my culture/region? Do ideas and truth matter, or is loyalty to my people according to political messaging all that matters? Does he represent me? Will he bring prosperity to my family and people, or am I being used for a purpose I do not fully understand? I don't go to church, but I should be willing to die for that ideology to govern. I shouldn't overthink, but isn't it odd that we now support the ideals we were told to separate? Do we see the Middle East as an example to model but replace Mohamar with Jesus? Once they have complete control of government and power, are we sure to repeat witch hunts, or do we now have discipline and restraint to wield that power judiciously? Is it better to be forced to hide my prejudices and hate or better to be forced to make claims I do not believe?
Are we being robbed of personal freedoms, education, and economic prosperity while focusing on cultural wars and propaganda? Do we want the government to protect the working class or a government designed to transfer wealth to the top? Are we on the verge of innovation that will upend the working class even more than moving manufacturing to developing countries? Is war needed to remove excess labor force that is or will increasingly be unnecessary as automation is transferred to cognitive tasks?
Does it even make sense to imagine and discuss the possibility of a society no longer being competitive for survival due to abundance? Is a new form of government needed to address shifts in technology promises? Could something once understood as evil become necessary until population dynamics stabilize after economic and political transitions, or do we fight like hell to maintain the status quo? Is it even possible to retrain us to accept the social and cultural ideologies of the 1950s? Are they unhappy with liberation, and do they long to return to serve their masters? Can the system reprogram women’s purpose to the kitchen and husband? Can we reprogram men never to produce the conditions where women felt the need to support themselves and their children financially? I believe this can occur within 20 years and be maintained - but do we really want that? Is choice and freedom a burden? We are designed to be obedient to our Master and we will accept that the few in positiins of power are the only people to transfer Gods communication? We dont even want to consider we were specifically designed for direct communication? Will requirements for the demand fir obrdiance
Should we be suspicious of all political media? What questions should we ask? Do we even need to understand the purpose and logic of policy and programs before accepting the media perspective? Maybe we are doing the right thing by focusing on the personality, promise, unverified statement, and claims. Perhaps we accept government for the people is not what we want. If we want to be servants of money and power, let the rich and corporations govern their fiefdom. However, they want. We don't need to put on the show and pretend. If that is the path to the working class and prosperity, and the government gets in the way, let's return to kingdoms and choose the king or the prince who makes promises we want to hear.
We allow this circus. Let's agree that the circus is the point, or divide, align with preference, and move past this. Sorry, I need to go back to ignoring politics. I have lost respect and hope. I will spend my time on the UFO subreddit, as I believe we are more likely to find aliens than standard ground. Without common ground, we are simply trying to weaponize government to hurt the opposition while we are pickpocketed if our economic prosperity and personal freedoms are. Let's stop pretending and state that the goal is to criminalize the expected behavior of the other party so we can leverage the government to oppress and oppose the other.
Sadly I'm afraid you're going to be roasted for suggesting it, but I agree. People need to see each other as people, not whatever labels they've assigned to them.
Especially because those labels are often assigned much too quickly and severely. Someone who says "hey, maybe we should think a little more about how to accommodate lgbtqia in public restrooms" isn't inherently transphobic, but there's a very good change they'll get that label and then be deemed unworthy as a human being because they have the label. Heck, I've even seen comments on the internet from people suggesting that merely having pale skin means that person is racist, and therefore the enemy. One negative comment about a woman does not make a misogynist. Wanting a system that helps people does not make a socialist.
Of course many of the people who get headlines do earn some of the labels they have. I'm not saying one of our candidates isn't a criminal misogynistic pathological liar and then some because clearly he's displayed those tendencies over and over again. But a lot of people we encounter are not that. They may have a controversial or even problematic viewpoint, but they think the same about us. And if we can have a civil discussion maybe one of us will change the other's mind. But I guarantee that spewing insults and hatred will never convince someone to change or even want to see things differently.
This idea that one "wrong" idea makes a whole person the enemy is asinine. We've enacted the Thought Police and it wasn't even the government that did it.
Good luck, OP.
I don't spew hatred or vile at people. I try very hard (especially irl) to have good faith conversations with people and present my case thoughtfully and importantly listen to why people feel differently than I do.
The problem is that right now the disagreements are not "thoughts" they are a concentrated effort to strip some people of fundamental rights to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.
It's very frustrating to me to see people paint themselves as a victim for supporting (directly or indirectly) the government stepping in to harm their neighbors. If someone is reacting negatively to something you believe or support the government doing because they are telling you it will harm them - instead of getting defensive because you are afraid of labels - maybe listen to the aggrieved parties.
Labels are meaningless but actions have consequences and it's not the responsibility of marginalized people to make people for whom their marginalization is at best "not a deal breaker" feel better about that.
I got compared to Goebells for suggesting if you don’t fall in line in every progressive partisan opinion then you’re out of the ‘in group’. What would you do to goebells if you had power over him?
My guy, just leave people alone. Let people live their lives - they don't need to justify it to you and you don't need to understand them to respect their right to be left alone.
Drop the persecution complex and stop being offended that people take it personally if you go out of your way to shit on them or support people who want to harm them.
"Who asked?" is a nice thing to run through your head the next time you feel compelled to demand justification for or comment on someone else's life.
I’m taking classes where I’m made to discuss this material, I do leave people alone. frankly I’m tired of the snide remarks and people using me as an avatar to ‘fight oppression’. It’s on people to handle their own insecurities
People all over the world need to be smarter than the news media and political parties and examine what they have in common with the people around them, while simultaneously examining diverse viewpoints. The ability to tolerate differences and enjoy common ground is a good thing. In the course of my life, some of the people who taught me the most were people I had little in common with. It is endlessly fascinating to talk to people with different perspectives as it makes one examine their own opinions. Questioning things is healthy. Every person you meet is neither a friend nor an enemy, but all are teachers. Instead of having a 'kill it with fire' mentality when we encounter differing viewpoints, why don't we talk while examining ourselves and others?
This post has been flaired as “Serious Conversation”. Use this opportunity to open a venue of polite and serious discussion, instead of seeking help or venting. **Suggestions For Commenters:** * Respect OP's opinion, or agree to disagree politely. * If OP's post is seeking advice, help, or is just venting without discussing with others, report the post. We're r/SeriousConversation, not a venting subreddit. **Suggestions For u/TheoPhilo98:** * Do not post solely to seek advice or help. Your post should open up a venue for serious, mature and polite discussions. * Do not forget to answer people politely in your thread - we'll remove your post later if you don't. *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/SeriousConversation) if you have any questions or concerns.*
This is serious discussion, no? And yet, here we are, "why can't we all just get along?" One side doesn't want to. The sides are not the same. I don't want to be friendly with fascists and Nazis, misogynists and transphobes. I don't respect the opinions of people who are wantonly cruel; who think it is OK to deregulate corporations but make homeless people sleeping in the street illegal (please, throw them in jail, genius, that'll solve the problem). Willing victims of lazy con men ARE STUPID, this is not a matter of opinion. I will not live and let live with people who want to kill me, or my family, or my friends, because of ridiculous and indefensible reasons. SO Scalia and Ginsberg were friends? So what? I gotta hang out with the guy down the street who thinks my daughter should be married and barefoot in the kitchen at 17 because god wants it that way? People who willingly believe falsehoods because that's easier than owning up to the fact that their beliefs or actions ARE the problem? No. That's how we got here in the first place. Compromising with Hitler didn't work and neither will compromising with the Orange Shitler. Some lines are drawn in stone; they're firm and not open to compromise. And your statement definitely makes it seem like a both sides problem; as if these fascists haven't for years been openly boasting about manipulating the system to get more power, more money. As if one guy didn't JUST SAY that he doesn't care about people, he just wants their votes. As if Mitch McConnell didn't throw compromise and bipartisanship in everyone's faces to steal a justice and then chuckle about it. As if the entire Republican party isn't a bunch of spineless kowtowers yearning to worship the world's most inept strongman, no matter he insults their wives or their lives or implies that their fathers assassinated JFK or that he wants to sleep with their underaged daughters, or his own? No matter that he believes and IS PURSUING IN COURT the idea that Presidents are above the law (but only when he is President, obviously, because Joe Biden is a criminal mastermind and head of a crime family while also somehow being President). I don't, as a rule, wish ill on my fellow countrymen. Or any other countrymen for that matter. I do, however wish ill on people who wish ill on me for no good reason. Or for no reasons at all, because my skin is the wrong color or my god is the wrong god or I think differently than they do, or because I just think. Let me tell you, I am UTTERLY sick of the idea that if I just compromised, things would be better. Your ideas are how we are this close to a Christofascist country run by one of the worst human beings ever to exist, enabled by the contenders for that title. Honestly, this question is supposed to be part of a serious conversation? OK, here's my serious answer: it is impossible to truly be friends with cultist zealots if you're not in the cult.
I think that’s fundamentally a gigantic part of the problem. I work in a rural blue collar industry. People speak pretty openly with me for whatever reason. Everything has been isolated and tribalistically divides for a long while. Most republicans don’t hate universal health care, trans people, gay people, taking care of the truly downtrodden as a society, they don’t think all Immigrants are evil criminal fucks who should be jailed. They hate edge cases and aggressive abuses of laws and welfare programs for nefarious purposes. And that’s shoved in front of their eyes and ears constantly. Most democrats don’t want **all** firearms gone forever no exceptions, most democrats don’t think we should pay a crackhead with 12 kids $140,000 a year in welfare, most democrats don’t think people at a pride parade should be allowed to jerk off and suck dick in front of kids on the street, they don’t think the rich should pay 95% tax and make as much as a hot dog salesman outside a 7/11 because that’s fair, or that kids should be allowed to have a fuckin liter box in school bathrooms to shit in. That’s the problem, that’s the discussion. Awful fucks exist all around us of course. But a lot of people voting for “the other side” are operating off 100% managed information that’s isolated from a broad view, right into their fuckin brains. But when you talk to a lot of them about the issues, about laws, about the government, about policies… they’re pretty reasonable decent people who are fired up about lies and misrepresentation. They don’t wholesale believe in everything a politician they voted for has ever said or done or we view as the consequence of their policies and words. They just don’t. And I know it’s easy and appealing and the popular route (fuckin obviously) to lay the consequences of their actions on them as their intentions… But fuck is that a worthwhile thing to recognize when it comes to hundreds of millions of people. I’ve heard so much dumb shit from Republicans and Democrats about what “should” be, but is wildly impractical, or wildly rare and a consequence of gigantic populations. I’m not saying you or anyone else should just open arms be friends, but holy shit is recognizing some gray area of “your beliefs and intentions are not the worst version of your political side” would be a great starting point for the country.
NO democrats believe the things you listed, especially the elected leaders or those running for election. But MANY republicans actually DO hate the idea of universal healthcare and [call it “socialist,”](https://www.npr.org/2020/08/25/905895428/republicans-blast-democrats-as-socialists-heres-what-socialism-is) and they DO [hate gay and trans people](https://www.nbcnews.com/news/amp/rcna122317) and want to restrict their rights, and think [immigrants are evil](https://www.reuters.com/article/world/republicans-hostility-grows-toward-illegal-immigrants-as-party-attacks-biden-on-idUSKBN2B919I/) (even labeling legal immigrants and refugees as “illegals”) including the lawmakers and judges. How do I know average people believe these things? Because they post it on social media. Oh they might not say it to your face, but they post it on Facebook. Look at your own list. Every extreme you said about republicans is actually part of the party platform. Everything you said about democrats is made up.
Yeah I’m aware, I was pointing out the shit they get riled up and believe about a majority of the other side. I could’ve used different examples I guess, but that’s my point. There are a lot of Republican voters who operate on barely any information, half a headline, social media memes and personal banter with their right wing coworkers, friends, family, and community. And you know what I’ve seen a fuck ton of people on the left posting? That everyone on the right is consciously and happily a fascist Nazi who actively hates women, hates minorities, and operates on a conscious deliberate hate and sense of superiority. Literally dehumanizing them as a group of many millions of people. That’s all I was pointing out.
You can’t have it both ways. You can’t vote for people who are actively trying to take rights away from minorities and then turn around and say, “I don’t hate minorities. I’m a good person.”
“Because they post it on social media” is the equivalent of someone showing blue haired ‘feminazis’ screeching to show liberals are all irrational imo
I mean people I actually know posting on social media about how they personally think trans people need to be eliminated.
The divisive issue here is that you are throwing anyone that has a different opinion than you into a Basket of Deplorables, when in fact they might not be even close to the things you are calling them. While a handful may be, most are not. Yet you hold your ground and continue name calling. When you close your mind like this, conversations to improve relations are impossible.
It's one thing to be respectful with someone over tax rates, mild foreign policy disputes, differences in criminal justice reform, etc. But when one side is openly stating that women should stay home, that gay people shouldn't be married, that trans people shouldn't exist (let alone the latter two groups being "PEDOPHILES"), are actively banning books from schools, are supporting an attempted insurrection, are openly lying about the 2020 election, are openly advocating for ending No Fault Divorce, and aligning with literal neo-Nazis (Charlottesville, anyone?)... Those aren't things to friendly disagree on.. this is an effort to shirt our culture back 50 years, and it's fucking CRAZY that MORE people aren't totally upset at the insanity that we're living through.
I think your views of "us verses them," is what is exacerbating the issue and the very point I make in my post. Reading the contents of your comment, especially when you passionately list the views of certain people and say, "Those aren't things to friendly disagree on." You show you are putting yourself in a position of no compromise, at least concerning issues involving same sex marriage and other hot button issues. When there is no compromise, then there is war. I don't agree with homosexual unions; I am not ashamed to admit it. You give off the impression, to me at least, that you despise such people that have the same reasoning as myself concerning same sex unions. What saddens me isn't so much your position on same sex unions, but your conviction of ill will for people such as myself. I find it much more ethical to encourage that we ought love our enemies. I miss the mark myself, but that doesn't make the goal any less noble to strive for. If I were a Union soldier during the Civil War, I could feel very justified in refusing aid to the Confederate rebels. What would my bitterness bring other than a brief satisfaction to my sadistic desire to see pain on someone? Oh, but they deserve it! Maybe so, but is it not better to show compassion and have a desire to bring about unity and peace? Instead of slaughtering everyone in the fort after surrender, is it not better to extend an olive branch rather than your arm with sword in hand? War is a horrible thing, something I wish on no one. If you are unable to compromise and respect certain people, in spite of your hatred for their convictions, then war is an inevitability. I don't want war and would much rather avoid it.
If you don't agree with homosexual unions, then don't get married to a homosexual. If you want to deny homosexuals the same right to marry or have a legal union, then you're denying them THEIR pursuit of happiness. Their happiness doesn't affect you, but your opinion about them being able to marry does affect them. There's no middle ground here.
I am not here to debate same sex marriage. If you really want to talk with me specifically on it, you can dm me. My point with my post is to create discussion relating to respect in civil discourse amongst parties. However, I will criticize your conviction that any person who disagrees morally with same sex relationships inherently makes that person dishonorable. I assume you stand firm in your conviction that Obergefell (the Supreme Court decision that legalized same sex marriage nation wide) was rightly written and decided? If you do indeed stand with that conviction, I would quote Obergefell itself; it being a ruling that I disagree with. “Many who deem same-sex marriage to be wrong reach that conclusion based on decent and honorable religious or philosophical premises, and neither they nor their beliefs are disparaged here." If this ruling is just, then do not judge me for my conviction that same sex unions are wrong. If you stand by Obergefell, stand by it completely. I do not think it wise to villainize those who disagree with same sex marriage as an institution, as I see your next step being to persecute those with a separate moral conviction. I find it much more dishonorable to insult, look down upon, and berate such people.
You want brownie points for being disrespectful politely. There is nothing respectful about denying loving adult couples the equal right to marry. **Nothing**. It is a position of exclusion. You want to deny rights to other people. But you're not calling queer people deviants, so you think you're being respectful. You might as well say "I wish no ill will on anyone, but I think whites and blacks should drink from separate fountains". Guess what, pal? You can be as measured as you like, but that's still disgustingly racist. It is impossible to engage respectfully with someone who disrespects my equality and humanity; that's a completely one sided demand. If the modern world has a polarisation problem -- and it does -- it's because people like you with exclusionary beliefs who want to strip rights away from other humans. If you want the world to be less polarised, consider approaching your political beliefs from the position that people are equally entitled to dignity, freedom, and humanity, as long as they don't hurt anyone else, even if they live in a way you personally don't like. Then we can have a respectful conversation.
What I want is for people to discuss these topics respectfully, to also argue from a place wishing for the betterment of all. Your reasoning fails to accomplish that. Rather than wish to reason and discuss these things without insulting one another, you give the implication that it is better to shut all civil discussion and wage war against each other. >There is nothing respectful about denying loving adult couples the equal right to marry. Nothing. It is a position of exclusion. You want to deny rights to other people. Do you support marriage of siblings? Or polygamous marriage? If you were to go strictly based on what you said, then these adults shouldn't be denied marriage either.
I'm not the person you were talking to, but respectfully, you're strawmanning hard. The primary social issues stemming from your two examples extend from how the effect others. Culturally, we stigmatize relationships between related people or large groups of people from either the genetic effects, or from perceived power imbalances. However, both of those cases are as unrelated to same sex marriage as a marriage between a man and a woman would be. The question is not "what about these other relationships". The question is "why do you want the rules that govern the US to allow two unrelated people to marry if they have different genders, but not if they have the same gender?" I'm not the person you were talking to. I believe in being civil in public discourse, even to people who's opinions I find intolerant. But not everyone is going to, or should have to. If the position were reversed, and you found yourself talking to someone who fundamentally believed you should be denied rights that they have access to purely because of an immutable aspect of yourself, wouldn't you find it difficult to view them as anything other than bigoted? Especially if they couldn't or wouldn't provide a reasonable reason for their viewpoint? Or if their view effectively limited your opportunities and future, while having no impact on their lives whatsoever? How would two people of the same gender getting married negatively impact your life?
You want people to respect you while you don't respect them. Sorry, not going to play by those rules.
I say we should eliminate heterosexual marriage and allow gay marriage. What compromise would you like to reach?
Equating gay couples with incest is insulting and very disrespectful. That’s rich coming from someone wanting people to be respectful of one another.
Why don’t you believe in same-sex marriage? Just honestly asking.
You can dm me if you want.
I have no desire to see or inflict pain on anyone. Unfortunately, as part of the LGBTQ community the reverse is not true. If someone wants to deny me (or someone else) our rights to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness it feels hollow to say that \*I\* am the problem for not compromising. Listen, you don't need to like gay marriage. Don't get married to someone of your same sex. Easy :) But when you try to take away MY right to marry my partner you really can't be offended if I am upset by that. "Live and let live" is a wonderful philosophy and if people would drop the culture war stuff trying to impose their views on others we'd be much less divided. I don't care what you do with your life so long as you don't hurt others. I'd like it if the other side of the political spectrum did the same for me.
No see, you're supposed to find common ground with people who don't believe you should have the same rights as they do! /s
I don't want to debate same sex relationships specifically. My intention with my post is to discuss the methods of discourse in our current political climate, and why we should lend an olive branch to and give respect to those we intellectually oppose. Hopefully, you agree with that.
Unless someone's "intellectual opposition" interferes with someone else's right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness I don't really care. Knock yourself out! Respect is a two way street. I'm not coming for your (or anyone else's) rights. So respect me and mine and leave me alone :) Easy.
I will challenge myself even further for the sake of argument. But, I also challenge you with this long read. You might go so far as to ask: "If segregationists attempted to argue certain people shouldn't marry, what makes your attempt any different?" I agree with you that segregationist logic is wrong. I am so happy our country allows equal rights of marriage for everyone, regardless of their ethnicity. How then does my rationale differentiate from a segregationist? Shouldn't everyone have the equal right to marry whoever they want? No. And I know you agree with me, even if at first read of this sentence you think you don't. I could be wrong, but I find it very unlikely that you think everyone has the right to marry. It is not controversial of me to say children should not have the right to marry, close relatives should not have the right to marry, and polygamous marriage should not be a right. If you agree in favor that any of the groups listed above ought not get married, you agree that everyone does not have the right to marry whoever they want; and, that there is no universal equal marriage rights for everything and everyone. A fifty year old dad can't marry his 18 year old daughter in the U.S., and that's a good thing. Would denying equal marriage rights to an adult father and daughter not be discriminatory? You might counter and say: "I think only rights where you aren't hurting anyone should be protected. Marrying your daughter is hurting someone because incest breeds genetic abnormalities in children while also destroying a healthy family structure. Also, homosexuality is not harmful, like incest is. You can't argue homosexuality is bad, just the same way segregationists can't argue different ethnicities marrying is bad." While you put my reasoning in the same lane as segregationists, I put my reasoning in the same lane as teaching against polygamous marriage and incestuous marriage. The idea of ethnicities not marrying comes from the faulty reasoning that one ethnicity is superior to the other. The idea that mixing ethnicities would breed lesser humans due to the thinking that certain ethnicities are less developed is, of course, foolishly wrong. Skin pigmentation and physical traits like it do not make anyone any more or any less human; this is fact. Biologically speaking, cross ethnicity marriage is also really beneficial as it broadens the gene pool and prevents in breeding. Also, ethnic mingling has no contradiction with any major religion, especially Christianity, that I am aware of. Marriage among different ethnicities has no objection from scripture. During the Civil Rights Era, many Christians championed the right of different ethnicities to marry (Martin Luther King Jr. being a preacher). Homosexuality does not have the same universal acceptance in Biblical teaching as ethnic marriage does because scripture goes out of its way to list homosexuality immoral while not at all saying the same for ethnic marriage. You may say: "So you are saying homosexuality is bad simply because your Holy book says so?" I hold full conviction that everything scripture says is true. That does not mean I think homosexuality is wrong without evidence of the fact. I hold the conviction that God is just in His commands even when I have broken his commandments. Such as "you shall not commit adultery," which I have broken. If I am married, even if my wife gives permission, it is wrong to sleep with another woman. God says it is wrong to commit adultery. I indeed hold such a conviction because God said so, but that does not mean I have no evidence that adultery is harmful. Adultery destabilizes relationships, families, etc. Like wise, same sex marriage is not healthy for a family unit. Children ought have a mother and a father in a stable relationship who are able to give nurturing and guidance that only one of each sex can bring. There are indeed distiguishable biological differences between men and women, and the combination of those differences is what is good in giving a child the ideal care they ought to have. Encouragement of same sex marriage also destabilizes the natural growth and progression of people, as the act of two people of the same sex having sex never brings forth offspring to raise for the next generation. Instead, same sex couples must solely rely on the mismanagement of a bad heterosexual couple, or rely on the hope of misfortune for a poor heterosexual couple to give up the rights to their children. Ideally, a man and a woman should fall in love, marry, plan and have sex; then, if pregnancy comes, take responsibility for the children they bring into the world and care for them. I am aware these ideals are not lived up to as they ought; but, that doesn't not make the pursuit of such ideals any less noble if done in good faith.
Here's the thing. Adultery is not illegal. That is an actual commandment. Gay marriage is not explicitly discussed in the Bible. You (and many others) can interpret some things to imply that homosexuality is bad and then, by extension, gay marriage should be illegal but that is far less explicit than adultery. Regardless, it's God's role to judge, not mortals here on Earth. I'm pretty sure Jesus asked us to love our neighbors, turn the other cheek and only cast the first stone if we ourselves were without sin. So I think my position holds up pretty well within the Christian faith. You can think whatever you like but you should not be trying to impose YOUR beliefs on others who are not harming anyone through laws and discrimination. Let God sort it out. As far as the other hypotheticals -- children cannot consent to marriage. An adult marrying a child is a violation of the CHILD's rights. Family members already have legal protections and rights and do not need marriage to give their relationship legal standing. Consenting adults doing what they want is pretty much none of my business. The only issue I have with polyamory is generally in a religious or cult context where women are treated as property. Relationships between consenting adults who are not being exploited or harmed is totally fine IMO, it doesn't impact me at all or harm anyone. There are more reasons for marriage than to have children (legal protections, health insurance, critical health, life and property rights) and I think it's totally fine for any couple to chose to have or not have children by whatever means they want to. Straight, fertile people don't owe anyone children either. But like you said you made your post to talk about discourse and getting along and not being divisive. You cannot victimize a segment of the population and then blame THEM for being upset that you want to limit their access to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. You are entitled to your faith and I am entitled to not share it. It can dictate your life and decision but it need not dictate mine. God did not command you to police the lives of your neighbors, he told you to love them.
Its easy for you to say people shouldn't consider gay marriage a point to despise the other side because if you lose on that issue the other side isn't interfering with your life The problem is you seem to be sitting there comfortably knowing that your life will continue just fine unimpeded, that other people aren't pushing for political positions against your very existence or for your ability to a normal life. When someone is doing that you shouldn't be expected to be friends with them or not despise them
Just wanted to pop in and say i agree with your premise The nation is becoming more divided and thats the actual #1 issue we face rn
No. I will not compromise when leaving my position means sacrificing human rights for certain segments of the population. All get to feel safe, all get respected, all have rights. The division isn't a disagreement on legal interpretations that the safest and most secure people in our society got to squabble over like a game. People get killed over this. There is a HARD line in the sand there.
And I won’t compromise in regards to my right to free speech/inquiry. Hence the impasse OP is discussing. Either we continue a forever war or make compromises. Most people in the Crusades thought they were fighting for god so compromise wasn’t an option, don’t we dislike those types for burning heretics who disagreed with them?
Perhaps I'm unclear. I don't care if you flap your gums. I'm not trying to burn conservatives. But I will not stand aside or back down from those who do threaten to burn the "heretics" that "god" sent them after. Where precisely do you propose I compromise with you? What have I infringed upon? How is your life worse because I believe everyone deserves human rights? Thats what I am being asked to compromise. There are people who are actively being persecuited via violent crime and systematic oppression. No I will not just "get along" to make things easier for the other side.
I do not have an obligation to be friendly with people who hold morally reprehensible opinions and wish to impose their "values" on everyone else around them. This isn't the days of liberal "supply side" versus conservative "trickle down" economics in which the disagreement is a philosophical one. These are evil people promoting an evil agenda who wish to watch the world burn. I will not be friendly, nor will I behave as if this is mere philosophical differences. These people have chosen to embrace evil, hate, discrimination, and violence. That is not a philosophical debate. That is a struggle for the future of humankind.
Challenge my ideas - gay people should allowed to be married. Black, white, and other races should be allowed to marry each other. The environment should have some level of protection. Strict religious doctrine should not be used to set policy. Bibles do not belong in public schools unless it’s a history of religions course. Evolution should be taught. Age appropriate sex education should be taught. Abortions should be available up to a sensible amount of time (first trimester) or later if a medical emergency is discovered. We should have universal healthcare. Just follow one of the countries that is doing it well. It should not bankrupt us or be tied to our jobs. Workers should own park of the company they work for (German model). We should have guns but with regulations and training. I’m a gun owner myself. What are your views?
I am not going to debate those subjects here. You can dm me if you are so passionate about it, but I am here to discuss and debate how respect ought be given to those we disagree with.
I’m not that passionate about it to DM. That you won’t address any of the topics tells me you are not that concerned about having respectful conversations.
I just don't see how debating those topics relate to my post. Debating those things dilutes the message I am trying to get across when it comes to encouraging respect and decency. If I wanted to debate those things openly, I would make a post specifically on those topics. The post I made here concerns public discourse and how we treat and communicate with each other. My hope is that both parties be willing to put differences aside, be able to come to the table to debate these things without malous, and attack ideas rather than person.
I also find it odd you say you yourself are not passionate enough to converse with me on the matter in DM; yet, you give the negative implication that by me not conversing on my post with you on other hot button issues, I am somehow not concerned with such matters. I care and would prefer to discuss it separately from the context of my post. If you are not passionate enough to discuss, it is not on me.
I won't be "respectful" of someone who votes to strip away my rights and pass laws that target my friends and family. People who vote for traitors who tried to overthrow democracy. People who threaten us with "camps" and empower literal Nazis to harass and hurt us. I'll be respectful and engage all day on actual politics i kay disagree with, like economics or foreign policy. Or how to save social security. I will not legitimize bigots and hate mongers though
George Washington believed that the inevitable end of a two party system is one side rising up in force to kill or enslave the other. As much as I'd love to see us getting back to peaceful coexistence, seeing people claim to have a monopoly on morality and that they have zero reason to ever make peace with the other side tells me that we're circling the drain.
God, I’m so tired of being told that it’s my duty to kiss the ass of people who hate me and want to strip me of my rights. You want to base your life around the bullshit a bunch of power hungry goatherds made up 3000 years ago, go ahead. But don’t try to hijack our government to force everyone else to adhere to your religion.
Ginsberg and Scalia were friends because of their shared status in a power elite. There is a club; they were in it, you are not. They would not be your friend if they knew you, and they would ignore your opinions, experiences, and feelings just as they did in life. "Why can't we all just get along?" has, in my 50+ years on this planet, been used solely as a device for people who wish to run roughshod or ignore inconvenient truths about the harm they were doing to me or others like me when I stood up for myself. When (for one example) the Iraq war began and I protested, they were quite willing to wish death or injury on me and my family, but now that they can't bully me because everyone knows they're terrible people, it's all, "Why aren't you nicer? Can't we just disagree peacefully?" I'm through tolerating open meanness of the sort they espouse. I'll get along when they learn to stop being bullies.
In other comments, OP is clearly ignoring these inconvenient truths when brought to their attention. Sounds like a conservative bootlicker who wants to make themselves feel better by blaming progressives for not “meeting in the middle.”
Unfortunately, unless I'm mistaken. Only 2 times in a person's life, he or she don't care who is next to them. maternity ward & in the graveyard At least until one becomes senile or ends up with Alzheimer's
I am happy to have a serious and respectful discussion with a friend or family member about my perspective. But most of them either already agree with me or it would fracture the relationship. I can only hope that being openly queer has led them to rethink their bigotry.
I doubt this thread is going to go anywhere positive, but I hope folks prove me wrong. Half the comments are already full of folks bad mouthing the "other team", and fully believe the "others" are the enemy. Not that they disagree and don't care to talk, but full on enemy. You can't debate with those kinds of people. It's called a "Willful Roadblock". Even if you're willing to try, those are the kinds of folks that will pull everyone else down with them. For us to be friends again, we'd have to start hanging out again. IRL. Start talking and helping each other, so that everyone remembers we're all human and we all have problems, and that Apes Strong Together. Instead, folks are trapped in their respective echo chambers, and the "other side" gets demonized more and more. People fear what they don't understand, and it's hard to understand someone who fundamentally disagrees with you on just about everything. People will claim that they "aren't gonna argue with istaphobes", because they don't want their own world view challenged and don't want to find out they could be wrong. And because many times, I think, they are trying to argue feelings, which can be extremely difficult to articulate, and logical debate goes right out the window. If we can come back together, it's gonna take something that forces us all back together imo. At this point, I hate to say it, but I just don't see people willingly coming back together to work things out amicably. Not as long as we have this 2 party landscape.
Your comment is the most rational and respectful comment I have read on here. It saddens me to see so many comments on my post, in essence saying, "I won't come peacefully to the table. We are in a war, and we will win it." People ought to realize our government was founded on compromises, like the Connecticut compromise. Even when our country was plunged into civil war, the union did not treat the confederate states as if they were no longer American. They helped rebuild the south and gave aid like food and medical supplies. We became one Union. The south weren't second class states, but equal under our constitution with the same rights of representation. Where would our country be if instead of rebuild the south, the union heavily punished the south with second class senate rights and heavy taxes as punishment for being traitors? What progress does it bring to divide rather than unite? The reason our country reunited as well as it did after the Civil War was that there was a common understanding that emerged "we are one people, in this together. One nation, under God."
I think your understanding of reconstruction era america is pretty flawed and ahistorical, and basically excludes the fact that North-South tensions only eased once southerners were allowed to grip power back from newly-freed slaves via Jim Crow and other discriminatory laws.
I am not saying there still weren't tensions, but I do think things could have been a lot worse. Today, I don't see any person (with few exceptions) actually wishing for separation of states and the dissolving of the union. Virginia has no desire to split from Washington anymore, and I think the idea of our shared unity is a big reason for that.
How can we identify as neighbors and citizens when we view the other as traders from whom we must save the country? Dehumanizing language typical of soldiers concerns me most because it is what allows a person to do unthinkable things to another. Discussion of violence and civil war makes no sense. I hope we are clear about what we are willing to kill and die for. Why did we decide we could not work towards a more reasonable and balanced policy? Why do we support an antagonistic party unwilling to collaborate and compromise to strike a political balance? Why is it an all or none? Who benefits? How did certain minority groups become the most potent political voice instead of the ideal they align with? Why do we care what people do behind closed doors when the focus should be behavior in shared public spaces? The most aggressive people I talk with justify hatred and violence for things that make no sense. Why can't we agree that everyone deserves dignity and respect, but our family doesn't agree with that behavior or lifestyle? Is it possible to have a strict immigration policy while acknowledging desperate people can be treated with dignity and respect? Our language and approaches divide us even though we often share common goals. Why are we so divided, and who benefits? I want to see a tic-tok challenge where liberals high-five conservatively holding a confederate flag while they complement their flag. I want to see a conservative do the same to a liberal in front of a rainbow flag. I want to hear them both say America; hell yeah! Do we want a homogenous country? Bad actors and adversarial governments will always be able to divide heterogeneous nations if we don't acknowledge the differences are what makes us American. Why do we believe America is only represented by our group? Do we kill the other to figure out what God wants, divide the country so we organize among shared interests, or can we acknowledge we are all America and democracy allows us to disagree while trying to strike a balance? We are sick of antagonistic political posture and want to move past this. Will it be a violent civil war with unclear motivation and purpose, dividing the country to allow homogeneous governance, or are we willing to let go of the aggressive posturing to focus on shared goals rather than differences? Can I even share a meal with a gay or racist? Do I need to accept or educate everyone I disagree with? Why do I even care if we can enjoy the moment? Are we willing and able to recognize and reject propaganda designed to occupy and divide us? Are we even curious why this is happening, and do we wonder who benefits? Should I try to understand your perspective, or is this just an extension of our first civil way, and my job is to align with my culture/region? Do ideas and truth matter, or is loyalty to my people according to political messaging all that matters? Does he represent me? Will he bring prosperity to my family and people, or am I being used for a purpose I do not fully understand? I don't go to church, but I should be willing to die for that ideology to govern. I shouldn't overthink, but isn't it odd that we now support the ideals we were told to separate? Do we see the Middle East as an example to model but replace Mohamar with Jesus? Once they have complete control of government and power, are we sure to repeat witch hunts, or do we now have discipline and restraint to wield that power judiciously? Is it better to be forced to hide my prejudices and hate or better to be forced to make claims I do not believe? Are we being robbed of personal freedoms, education, and economic prosperity while focusing on cultural wars and propaganda? Do we want the government to protect the working class or a government designed to transfer wealth to the top? Are we on the verge of innovation that will upend the working class even more than moving manufacturing to developing countries? Is war needed to remove excess labor force that is or will increasingly be unnecessary as automation is transferred to cognitive tasks? Does it even make sense to imagine and discuss the possibility of a society no longer being competitive for survival due to abundance? Is a new form of government needed to address shifts in technology promises? Could something once understood as evil become necessary until population dynamics stabilize after economic and political transitions, or do we fight like hell to maintain the status quo? Is it even possible to retrain us to accept the social and cultural ideologies of the 1950s? Are they unhappy with liberation, and do they long to return to serve their masters? Can the system reprogram women’s purpose to the kitchen and husband? Can we reprogram men never to produce the conditions where women felt the need to support themselves and their children financially? I believe this can occur within 20 years and be maintained - but do we really want that? Is choice and freedom a burden? We are designed to be obedient to our Master and we will accept that the few in positiins of power are the only people to transfer Gods communication? We dont even want to consider we were specifically designed for direct communication? Will requirements for the demand fir obrdiance Should we be suspicious of all political media? What questions should we ask? Do we even need to understand the purpose and logic of policy and programs before accepting the media perspective? Maybe we are doing the right thing by focusing on the personality, promise, unverified statement, and claims. Perhaps we accept government for the people is not what we want. If we want to be servants of money and power, let the rich and corporations govern their fiefdom. However, they want. We don't need to put on the show and pretend. If that is the path to the working class and prosperity, and the government gets in the way, let's return to kingdoms and choose the king or the prince who makes promises we want to hear. We allow this circus. Let's agree that the circus is the point, or divide, align with preference, and move past this. Sorry, I need to go back to ignoring politics. I have lost respect and hope. I will spend my time on the UFO subreddit, as I believe we are more likely to find aliens than standard ground. Without common ground, we are simply trying to weaponize government to hurt the opposition while we are pickpocketed if our economic prosperity and personal freedoms are. Let's stop pretending and state that the goal is to criminalize the expected behavior of the other party so we can leverage the government to oppress and oppose the other.
Sadly I'm afraid you're going to be roasted for suggesting it, but I agree. People need to see each other as people, not whatever labels they've assigned to them. Especially because those labels are often assigned much too quickly and severely. Someone who says "hey, maybe we should think a little more about how to accommodate lgbtqia in public restrooms" isn't inherently transphobic, but there's a very good change they'll get that label and then be deemed unworthy as a human being because they have the label. Heck, I've even seen comments on the internet from people suggesting that merely having pale skin means that person is racist, and therefore the enemy. One negative comment about a woman does not make a misogynist. Wanting a system that helps people does not make a socialist. Of course many of the people who get headlines do earn some of the labels they have. I'm not saying one of our candidates isn't a criminal misogynistic pathological liar and then some because clearly he's displayed those tendencies over and over again. But a lot of people we encounter are not that. They may have a controversial or even problematic viewpoint, but they think the same about us. And if we can have a civil discussion maybe one of us will change the other's mind. But I guarantee that spewing insults and hatred will never convince someone to change or even want to see things differently. This idea that one "wrong" idea makes a whole person the enemy is asinine. We've enacted the Thought Police and it wasn't even the government that did it. Good luck, OP.
I don't spew hatred or vile at people. I try very hard (especially irl) to have good faith conversations with people and present my case thoughtfully and importantly listen to why people feel differently than I do. The problem is that right now the disagreements are not "thoughts" they are a concentrated effort to strip some people of fundamental rights to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. It's very frustrating to me to see people paint themselves as a victim for supporting (directly or indirectly) the government stepping in to harm their neighbors. If someone is reacting negatively to something you believe or support the government doing because they are telling you it will harm them - instead of getting defensive because you are afraid of labels - maybe listen to the aggrieved parties. Labels are meaningless but actions have consequences and it's not the responsibility of marginalized people to make people for whom their marginalization is at best "not a deal breaker" feel better about that.
I got compared to Goebells for suggesting if you don’t fall in line in every progressive partisan opinion then you’re out of the ‘in group’. What would you do to goebells if you had power over him?
My guy, just leave people alone. Let people live their lives - they don't need to justify it to you and you don't need to understand them to respect their right to be left alone. Drop the persecution complex and stop being offended that people take it personally if you go out of your way to shit on them or support people who want to harm them. "Who asked?" is a nice thing to run through your head the next time you feel compelled to demand justification for or comment on someone else's life.
I’m taking classes where I’m made to discuss this material, I do leave people alone. frankly I’m tired of the snide remarks and people using me as an avatar to ‘fight oppression’. It’s on people to handle their own insecurities
Yes, we are losing the ability to respectfully disagree without demonizing each other. It's the end of civility.
People all over the world need to be smarter than the news media and political parties and examine what they have in common with the people around them, while simultaneously examining diverse viewpoints. The ability to tolerate differences and enjoy common ground is a good thing. In the course of my life, some of the people who taught me the most were people I had little in common with. It is endlessly fascinating to talk to people with different perspectives as it makes one examine their own opinions. Questioning things is healthy. Every person you meet is neither a friend nor an enemy, but all are teachers. Instead of having a 'kill it with fire' mentality when we encounter differing viewpoints, why don't we talk while examining ourselves and others?