Disabled vet booed in speech

[ChrisL]

Honestly, if I thought some omniscient, omnipotent being wanted the world some way, I'd probably care a lot too. I don't see the world that way, but I can understand where those that do are coming from.

I would think that would go against religion. Do unto others and all that. Sometimes religion can be SO contradictory.

 

[Anagram]

I would think that would go against religion. Do unto others and all that. Sometimes religion can be SO contradictory.

It definitely can. I suppose you could look at it as trying to save people from going to hell, and that if possible you'd want others to do the same for you. I don't agree with it, but I get the thought process I guess.

 

[sangha]

That's the definition that came up when I searched it. It was certainly how I was using the term. If you were using it a different way I apologize.

In that case, you're using it wrong.

I love to eat lobster. I'm responsible for the death of scores of lobsters. I doubt they see me as being "pro-lobster", even though I have no hate towards the lobster.

 

[chromium]

No it doesn't. As far as I'm concerned its a wrong belief, but being against same sex marriage does not make one anti-gay. Many recent polls even show a majority of Republicans agreeing to civil unions, even if they don't support gay marriage. If you believe homosexual activity should be legal and approve civil unions, then even if for whatever reason you get hung up on the word marriage, I don't think you can be described as anti-gay.

I think it is anti-gay to work to deny equal rights. Obviously we'll never get every Republican into a room to see if most would taunt a disabled veteran. Maybe you're right about that, but what's disturbing to me is probably no one in the party will speak out against it, as was the case at the RNC. That tells me it's still a long ways from atoning for decades of hate speech and discrimination.

 

[Anagram]

In that case, you're using it wrong.

I love to eat lobster. I'm responsible for the death of scores of lobsters. I doubt they see me as being "pro-lobster", even though I have no hate towards the lobster.

How are you using it?

I guess it is theoretically possible to kill gay people without being anti-gay, the way I and the definition I got uses it. However, I cannot think of any way anyone could systematically kill gay people without showing hatred or contempt for them.

 

[ChrisL]

In that case, you're using it wrong.

I love to eat lobster. I'm responsible for the death of scores of lobsters. I doubt they see me as being "pro-lobster", even though I have no hate towards the lobster.

Who's "they?" The lobsters? :lol:

 

[sangha]

How are you using it?

I guess it is theoretically possible to kill gay people without being anti-gay, the way I and the definition I got uses it. However, I cannot think of any way anyone could systematically kill gay people without showing hatred or contempt for them.

And I don't see how anyone could want to systematically deprive gay people of their rights without being anti-gay

And screaming about how their behavior is sinful is an expression of contempt

 

[sangha]

Who's "they?" The lobsters? :lol:

Yes, the lobsters

 

[ChrisL]

Yes, the lobsters

They are anti-sangha.

 

[Anagram]

And I don't see how anyone could want to systematically deprive gay people of their rights without being anti-gay

I was considering the motivation behind it. It's not coming out of a belief that gays are inferior or hatred of them. Or at least it isn't all the time. I think that's the difference between it.

And screaming about how their behavior is sinful is an expression of contempt

I disagree with that. Claiming that a behavior someone is has is sinful is not an expression of contempt. Or if it was than those people would automatically hate everyone.

Honestly I think it comes down to the definition your using. Dictionary.com's is "opposed or hostile to homosexuals or to homosexual social reforms and institutions." Under that definition I'd agree with you. Under googles and wiki's I think it is possible to be against same-sex marriage and not be anti-gay.

Of course, I don't think it matters all that much. We'd probably both agree that no matter what definition you use, you cannot be against same-sex marriage and be right.

 

[sangha]

I was considering the motivation behind it. It's not coming out of a belief that gays are inferior or hatred of them. Or at least it isn't all the time. I think that's the difference between it.

And I was ignoring the motivation, and focusing on the effect

I disagree with that. Claiming that a behavior someone is has is sinful is not an expression of contempt. Or if it was than those people would automatically hate everyone.

No, the fact that they do not apply that standard to all just shows how their beliefs are motivated by contempt, though contempt is not needed, as I note above

Honestly I think it comes down to the definition your using. Dictionary.com's is "opposed or hostile to homosexuals or to homosexual social reforms and institutions." Under that definition I'd agree with you. Under googles and wiki's I think it is possible to be against same-sex marriage and not be anti-gay.

According to that definition, they are anti-gay because they are opposed and hostile to homosexual social reforms. SSM is a social reform.

Googles definition is "prejudiced against or opposed to homosexuality or homosexuals." This definition applies to those who oppose SSM

Of course, I don't think it matters all that much. We'd probably both agree that no matter what definition you use, you cannot be against same-sex marriage and be right.

True

 

[ChrisL]

I was considering the motivation behind it. It's not coming out of a belief that gays are inferior or hatred of them. Or at least it isn't all the time. I think that's the difference between it.



I disagree with that. Claiming that a behavior someone is has is sinful is not an expression of contempt. Or if it was than those people would automatically hate everyone.

Honestly I think it comes down to the definition your using. Dictionary.com's is "opposed or hostile to homosexuals or to homosexual social reforms and institutions." Under that definition I'd agree with you. Under googles and wiki's I think it is possible to be against same-sex marriage and not be anti-gay.

Of course, I don't think it matters all that much. We'd probably both agree that no matter what definition you use, you cannot be against same-sex marriage and be right.

I agree that it doesn't necessarily mean hatred, but sometimes it does.

 

[Anagram]

I agree that it doesn't necessarily mean hatred, but sometimes it does.

Oh definitely. Lots of it. I just don't agree that it automatically means hatred.

 

[AGENT J]

Gay combat vet who lost leg in Iraq booed by anti-gay protesters in San Antonio – LGBTQ Nation

SAN ANTONIO — A highly decorated openly gay Iraq war combat veteran was booed by a crowd of anti-gay protesters during his speech to the San Antonio City Council meeting Wednesday evening.


Former Marine Staff Sergeant Eric Alva — a San Antonio native who was the first American service member seriously injured in the Iraq War when he stepped on a land mine in March 2003 and lost his right leg — was speaking in favor of a proposed addition to the city’s non-discrimination law that would add protections for sexual orientation, gender identity and veteran status.

But as Alva began to deliver his remarks, many in the crowd of approximately 200 people attending the council meeting began to boo.

“To all you people that preach the word of God, shame on you because God loves me, like the day I laid bleeding on the sands of Iraq and that’s why he saved me,” Alva told the crowd as left the podium, still visibly shaken from the crowd’s reaction.

Later on Facebook, Alva wrote:

“Well I just left city council chambers and I feel like crying. I have never seen a city so divided and hateful towards each other. All of man kind should be ashamed. I already spoke and even some of the religious groups even boo’ed me as I spoke. Such disrespect as they preach the word of God.”

Prior to the council session, local anti-gay rights advocate Pastor Charles Flowers of the Faith Outreach Center led a prayer vigil and demonstration outside City Hall where he told the crowd, “Let them vote ‘no’ to this ordinance, and ‘yes’ to the reign of the kingdom of God.”



Is it a new low or just the usual religiously fueled hatred? Of course it reminds me of the RNC, but for some reason this seems worse, maybe because this is his 'community.' It wasn't just yesterday that DADT was repealed, yet to the right wing, this seems like the one scenario where it's still perfectly acceptable to disrespect a veteran.

While all the people that booed are bigoted, anti-rights, anti-freedom, anti-american pieces of **** its doesn't help to take their brush and paint all of the right or all of the religious people because i know people on the right that would have told the people booing to shut their damn mouths and religious people that would be disgusted over these acts.

Many people on the right and religious people totaly stand for equal rights and would have never booed this guy.

DOnt let these jackass cast a bad light on others.

 

[VanceMack]

People were not booing a wounded American combat vet, they were booing a position on gay rights...one they disagree with. That position happened to be being advanced by an individual that happened to be a wounded combat vet. His being a wounded combat vet gives him not special cache or privilege nor protection, anymore so than a wounded combat vet that DISAGREES with gay rights should receive. That his vet status is even brought up speaks volumes.

 

[solletica]

I don't think this group speaks for the entire right wing.

Guns + gay-bashing + Muslim-bashing + Latino-bashing + abortion bans = right wing.

 

[solletica]

Right, because nobody on the left has ever shown disrespect to veterans or the military.

The military doesn't deserve any respect because its actions are treasonous--it fights for the gummint against the Constitution and the interests of the People.

However, the Left doesn't define itself solely by childish bigotries, whereas childish bigotries is the right wing.

 

[chromium]

While all the people that booed are bigoted, anti-rights, anti-freedom, anti-american pieces of **** its doesn't help to take their brush and paint all of the right or all of the religious people because i know people on the right that would have told the people booing to shut their damn mouths and religious people that would be disgusted over these acts.

Many people on the right and religious people totaly stand for equal rights and would have never booed this guy.

DOnt let these jackass cast a bad light on others.

I'm thinking more along the lines of the manifestation of their animus, the pervasive bigotry of the republican party and various churches. In a way, i don't even blame the individuals doing it, as they are easily manipulated. I think it's ok to admonish those entities when their leaders don't do anything to discourage these antics and, in fact, are directing it all. Without the party and church, none of this happens.

 

[chromium]

Oh definitely. Lots of it. I just don't agree that it automatically means hatred.

Unfortunately though, if we discount hatred, the only motive left i can think of is stupidity.

 

[AGENT J]

I'm thinking more along the lines of the manifestation of their animus, the pervasive bigotry of the republican party and various churches. In a way, i don't even blame the individuals doing it, as they are easily manipulated. I think it's ok to admonish those entities when their leaders don't do anything to discourage these antics and, in fact, are directing it all. Without the party and church, none of this happens.

since the fact is there are atheist, independants, democrats etc that are also bigots and dont believe in equal rights i have to disagree.

 

[chromium]

since the fact is there are atheist, independants, democrats etc that are also bigots and dont believe in equal rights i have to disagree.

Yes, i have met atheist bigots, but they are *an extreme minority*, and it isn't the platform of the demos that gays shouldn't have equal rights. You don't frequently see demos inciting hate in this way either.

 

[AGENT J]

Yes, i have met atheist bigots, but they are *an extreme minority*
2.), and it isn't the platform of the demos that gays shouldn't have equal rights. You don't frequently see demos inciting hate in this way either.

1.) really? according to what facts/stats?
2.) "stereo-typical" platform, media driven extremist loud mouth platform
3.) in this way? against gays? again not stereotypically

blanket statments will always be part of the problem

 

[Gipper]

Right, because nobody on the left has ever shown disrespect to veterans or the military. Lol.

BTW, if the guy had been booed for giving a pro-life speech, I wonder if the OP would be similarly incensed. I doubt he gives a **** about the vet. To him, he's just a political tool (while the OP is just a plain tool eace).

This essentially identifies the sensationalism. The fact that he was a disabled vet has no bearing whatsoever with the booing. They booed the message, not the man. True believers tend to do that - on both sides. Clinton caught a lot of crap from the left when he took conservative stances on some things, both during and after his presidency. Bush 41, the same. When they teamed up for altruistic, charitable functions, many on both sides started to vomit - literally and verbally.

 

[chromium]

1.) really? according to what facts/stats?
2.) "stereo-typical" platform, media driven extremist loud mouth platform
3.) in this way? against gays? again not stereotypically

blanket statments will always be part of the problem

I've been critical of dems for being cowards about this, for not leading. Other than that, i can go into exit polls and such, but you seem like a committed ally, so i'm just going to stop there.

 

[chromium]

This essentially identifies the sensationalism. The fact that he was a disabled vet has no bearing whatsoever with the booing. They booed the message, not the man. True believers tend to do that - on both sides. Clinton caught a lot of crap from the left when he took conservative stances on some things, both during and after his presidency. Bush 41, the same. When they teamed up for altruistic, charitable functions, many on both sides started to vomit - literally and verbally.

I could be wrong, but i suspect this is the one issue where they'd act that way towards a disabled vet. I'm seeing a pattern. Considering he was gay, it seems to me they were disrespecting both the man and message. Clinton and Bush on the other hand were politicians. Their job was to govern and if we think they sucked at it, that's fair game.