What Are Best Friends For? February 20, 2012

What Are Best Friends For?

I saw this at PostSecret yesterday:

Well, duh. Of course he won’t be your friend.

Would you remain his friend if you found out he secretly believed he was superior to you?

Would you continue being BEST friends with a person who thought you were less than a person?

If you don’t support gay rights “in any way” how can you possibly lie to your BEST friend every time you call him your Best Friend?

BEST friends have each other’s backs.

BEST friends support each other on a basic human level.

BEST friends don’t lie to each other.

Imagine someone saying, “When my black best friend finds out I’m racist and support segragation, I’m afraid he won’t be my friend anymore.”

I hope your friend does, in fact, find out about your vulgar beliefs pertaining to gay rights. I hope, soon, you will realize that your sexual orientation is not superior and that marriage equality has nothing to do with sexual intercourse and everything to do with HUMAN rights.

I hope your next postcard is about how you were wrong.

"The way republican politics are going these days, that means the winner is worse than ..."

It’s Moving Day for the Friendly ..."
"It would have been more convincing if he used then rather than than."

It’s Moving Day for the Friendly ..."

Browse Our Archives

What Are Your Thoughts?leave a comment
  • What definition of “friend” describes someone inferior, with fewer rights than you? “Pet?” “Flock?”

    I wouldn’t put too much stock into it. The purpose of PostSecret is to make drama, not sense.

  • Anonymous

     “I hope your friend does, in fact, find out about your vulgar beliefs
    pertaining to gay rights. I hope, soon, you will realize that your
    sexual orientation is not superior and that marriage equality has
    nothing to do with sexual intercourse and everything to do with HUMAN

    Wow! Maybe this person is struggling with their beliefs. Maybe this is a process. Not everyone can simply sweep their entire belief system under the rug in a moment. Just as some have to wrestle with being gay, how they’re going to tell family and friends, and worry what others might think there are others who have to equally wrestle with the fact they’re friend is gay and their entire belief system stands in contrast to them remaining friends. Grow up! So much for the “Friendly Atheist.” Get some years on your and you will realize life is much more complicated.

  • And of course he’ll be the victim, not the gay guy who found out his “friend” was a bigot who didn’t see him as an equal human being worthy of the rights others enjoyed. 

  • PJB863

    I would hope that by the time he’d gotten around to being best friends, the struggle with beliefs would have long since resolved itself.  You’re giving bigotry a pass here.

  • Anonymous

    Actually, this case is pretty simple. His beliefs are forcing him to be dishonest with his friend, and possibly to think ill of him: those are shitty beliefs. The author of this post is offering some frank advice, but I think it’s closer to being “friendly” than your condescending “poor suffering Christian” crap. And she clearly holds out hope that he’ll get over himself. I mean, she spells it out right in the portion that you quote: “I hope, soon, you will realize…”

  • Sw

    I’m not for a minute defending the anti-gay sentiment expressed by the friend, but I can kind of understand the supposed contradiction in being friends with someone who is gay and still believing that gay rights shouldn’t be supported.  He probably doesn’t think of his friend in terms of orientation at all and probably does not understand what the concept of gay rights means to him – they have probably never even discussed the matter.  There’s also the unfortunate reality of gays reinforcing this by being dismissive of gay rights; i.e., read the Gay Republican blogs out there that are semi-defensive of GOP policies.

  • If he understands enough to recognize that his gay “best friend” would likely dump him from his life over it, then he can’t pretend he doesn’t understand the importance of the issue, and at that point he has no excuse to be ignorant of details. 

    As for gay right wing republicans… they’re unfortunate but a certain percentage of any group is nuts. I’ve been out of the closet for 22 years and I don’t know any, although I do know plenty of gay guys who have made plain that they won’t date republicans or befriend gay republicans. (I think the no-befriending rule is going a bit too far myself, but I think you see my point that they’re really outside the mainstream.)

  • Sw

    Most gay Republicans consider the official party line on LGBT issues unfortunate, but they also tend to be fiscally conservatives/agree with conservative approaches outside of the Religious Right, so they justify their party affiliation with “Well, other issues are more important right now.”

  • Keulan

    I (as an atheist) certainly wouldn’t want to stay friends with someone who turned out to be bigoted against atheists. And why would anyone want to remain friends with someone who believes you don’t deserve the same rights as everyone else?

  • You should note this was a guest post, not written by Hemant himself.  Having said that, there’s nothing unfriendly about it, the poster is simply pointing out that the belief that someone should be denied any rights because of their sexual orientation is vulgar, I agree.

    It’s not even the usual pathetic “love the sinner, hate the sin” rhetoric, they are quite happy calling them their gay best friend, will probably hang out with them, laugh with them, watch tv, or go to a movie with them and still think (privately) that their “best friend”  deserves less than they do.  

    Hypocritical, ignorant and vulgar behavior. 

  • Anonymous

    I for one am glad that whoever wrote this has a gay best friend. Of course, this friend would be perfectly justified in ending the friendship if he/she were to find out that their supposed best friend doesn’t think they should have any rights. However for now their presence in the lives of this (I’m guessing young) bigot can be a huge force for good.

    It’s repeated over and over again that the single most important political act a GLBT person can make is being out to their friends and family. There’s a reason for that. Many of those people will have bigoted attitudes that they’ve never had occasion to question. Suddenly having a GLBT person in their lives makes them realize that the issue of gay rights is not an abstract, but affects real people who they have real affection to, and who they may lose if they persist in their attitudes. It’s also much harder to demonize a group of people as perverse and strange when you know members of that group who could not be more ordinary.

    So yes whoever wrote this is bigoted and yes, their gay friend has a perfect right to cut them off if they find out about this bigotry. However a lot of GLBT rights supporters are former bigots who had to face the reality of having a gay sibling, or child, or best friend. A lot of them did not chance over night, and a lot of them struggled with the knowledge of what their loved ones would think of them if they knew of their bigotry. That’s often (though not always) a first step towards letting go of prejudice. So it’s fine to not go easy on bigotry, but remember that people don’t always stay bigots forever.

  • Demonhype

     That is so hard for me to reconcile, that anyone could think “well, sure, a lot of people in that political party (including many if not all ruling members) think I’m an abomination of Nature and God and would at best deny me any and all civil rights and see to it that I can’t even find work and at worst would like to either jail or execute me and maybe even torture the “gay” out of me at some point in the process, but I like how they’re fiscally conservative and believe in a free (for all) capitalist system, so I can get over the fact that they hate me and would like me to be homeless, jailed, or dead.”

    To me, that’s like someone black saying “sure, they hate me and want to make sure I am treated like a second class citizen, that outright legalized discrimination will follow me and hold me and my children back for life, that I am made a perpetual slave and kept in the “bad” neighborhoods with no prospects allowed to ever leave it, that they want to prevent my or my children’s attendance in institutes of higher education,  that they essentially see my kind as some sort of slave or servant race who should be kept there by any means necessary….but they really do seem to love Jesus, so I guess I can overlook all of that in favor of the more important issues.”

    Or to Godwin the thread, a Jewish guy saying “Well, that Hitler fellow sure has it in for my people and wants to either enslave us or genocide us….but I like what he said about Germany fighting back and taking over Europe.  I think I can overlook his opinions about Jews in favor of the more important issues for Germany.”

    I just don’t  trust it.  This isn’t like, say, having a bit of disagreement over your party’s views on gun control, this is about that party having an agenda to wipe you off the map or at least lock you back in the closet on pain of death, and how on earth can you overlook something like that?  I can’t help but think those people are either putting some massive blinders on or are deluded enough to think that won’t bite them square in the ass if that group ever got the power they seek, that maybe those Repubs will say “wow, those gay Repubs did some great work for us, maybe they aren’t the Abominations Worth of Death that the Bible says they are!  You know what, why don’t we just be nice to them instead?”

    I mean, don’t we have an example?  Wasn’t there some guy whose help was indispensable in winning WWII, and then right after the victory his country said “thanks for all that indispensable assistance that helped us win the war, now that we don’t need you anymore you’re under arrest for being gay?”  Hmm, now what was his name again…..it’s on the tip of my tongue….

  • Anonymous

    He most likely doesn’t think about it the way you guys do. He uses the phrase “Gay rights” in the same way he would use the phrase “Abortion Rights” and does not view them as natural rights but as claims of special privilege. This in no way requires him to think of Gays as inferiors who then deserve less rights than everyone else.

    Just as no one has the right to kill babies he would think no one has the right to same sex marriage because it doesn’t count as a right. Gays share the same right to marry the opposite sex as everyone else, and so called “gay marriage” is not true marriage in his eyes. No more so than say “animal marriage” or ” bestiality marriage” or “polygamy” would be. To him there is only one true form of marriage.

    Make no mistake he probably does view gays as inferior in another way. Like he views blind people. I have a question for you however. If you are honest about yourself you will view a non handicapped person as superior (not in rights) but in abilities than a handicapped person. THis in no way means you can’t be friends with or cherish a friendship with people who are inferior in such ways.

    In fact it is likely that you feel your beliefs are superior to those of others. Yet you do, unless you are a bigot, refrain from making Christian friends. How many of you are only best friends with atheists?

    I’m sure plenty of Christians felt they had a right to keep that plaque up in Cranston. Your rejection of this rights claim by a Christian friend does not necessarily entail viewing them as a “less than a person.”

    Now it might just be that he is a bigot who sees his homosexual friend as a subhuman but there just isn’t enough information her to jump to that conclusion.

    Oh, and yes, best friends do lie to each other all the time. Lies of omission, white lies, lies to protect oneself, lies to protect the friends feelings, and lies to preserve the friendship. No need to tell your best friend you think his girlfriend or boyfriend is ugly. No need to tell him you which political and religious issue you disagree with him or her on.

    I have friends who believe in all sorts of nonsense and I definitely don’t make a point of telling them where they are wrong all the time. They don’t need my opinions in every case.

  • Anonymous

    As an example of what I am saying here I will criticize this sentence: “Imagine someone saying, ‘When my black best friend finds out I’m racist and support segragation, I’m afraid he won’t be my friend anymore.’ ”

    He did not express a hatred of gays nor support for any form of segregation for gays. A better analogy would be someone who thinks that Affirmative Action is actually (and it is) a form of discrimination. They might have a friend who is black that they would avoid the subject on. This in no way means the view their black friend as inferior. They might just value the friendship more than agreement on the subject.

    This is entirely different than if the friend forces the discussion, in which case, one should express ones true opinion, although it is acceptable to say, “I’m afraid we may not see eye to eye on this. Are you sure you want to discuss it?”

  • Gordon Duffy

     sigh, not friendly enough trolling.

  • Anonymous

    “I hope, soon, you will realize that your sexual orientation is not superior and that marriage equality has nothing to do with sexual intercourse and everything to do with HUMAN rights.”

    This statement is false. Having perfect eyesight is objectively superior to being blind, or needing glasses. All other things being equal the perfectly sighted will biologically outcompete those not so gifted (unless you are a cave fish). In the case of humans we can compensate in various ways, like eye glasses and white canes. However tHe compensations have associated costs. One must manufacture the aids and that is a cost the perfectly sighted do not bear. So even in that case the one is superior to the other.

    Homosexuality is under normal circumstances humans are likely to encounter, all other things being equal, an inferior biological condition to heterosexuality. If all penguins were homosexual the species would go extinct. Human homosexuals can compensate with things like overcoming ones natural tastes, artificial insemination and the like but these have costs. So like with eyesight there is an objective superiority of heterosexuality over homosexuality with regards to reproduction.

    As there is no need to ban people with bad eyesight from breeding, or to punish, or shun them the same is true for sexual orientation. selective pressures will take care of that and will properly weigh the cost of compensatory actions without any need to calculate them (assuming no forced redistribution of income).

    [… And no this does not require people to starve in the streets but I don’t want to cover all the wrong thinking in that regard at this time]

    Human rights is an invention of the left used to label whatever right they happen to desire to grant. There is no disciple of thought going into it and often one human right claimed is in direct conflict with another. This is because they are often positive rights, like the right to have health care provided which implies a right to force others to provide it, which turns them into little more than slaves of the state.

    The right to gay marriage is a natural right, not a “human”one. Gay marriage is a negative right and imposes no costs on others. There is no need to use the adjective “human”.

    Under such a view homosexuals have equality of authority. It is impossible for them to have either equality of results or equality of nature, given the realities. That equality of authority does not arise because of any false claim that all humans are equal in ability. It arises out of the nature of reciprocal cooperation. All humans are self interested agents and as such would only reasonably agree to a set of rules that gives equal authority to all. Rules that slant the field in one direction, contain double standards, or are unfair in apportioning authority in other ways will not gain as widespread an acceptance. One cannot expect cooperation from others when one has games the rules in ones own favor or those of ones group.

    My neighbor does not have to be my equal in every way for him to cooperate with me. In fact it is our differences in talent, training and knowledge that allows increased benefits through trade. There should be many ways that the differences between the the differing sexual orientations can lead to mutual benefit. Adoption being a case in point.

  • Venture Free McGee

    “To me, that’s like someone black saying…”

    This type of comment is so incredibly common that I don’t see how people can so thoroughly blind themselves to it’s implications. It takes  a special kind of self-deception to NOT see how much of a basic civil rights issue this really is.

    I’ve not heard an argument against gay rights yet that couldn’t easily be transplanted into a 1960’s segregationist’s speech. Well, maybe with slightly fewer explicit references to butt sex.

  • First “brianmacker” there are homosexual penguins and the species is doing fine.  This notion that “if all [species X] were gay they would die out” is a ridiculous trope and a strawman.  Not all humans are gay ergo gay people will not cause the human race to die out.  Numerous species display homosexual activity without dying out as a result.

    Secondly has it not occurred to anyone that the picture in the post is a joke and it is deliberately written to illustrate the feelings of a closeted gay person?  Word it this way:

    “My best friend doesn’t know that I am gay.

    I’m afraid that if he ever finds out he won’t want to be my friend any more”

    That’s what it’s meant to be about:  It’s about a change in attitudes so that gay people no longer need to fear the reaction of others and instead it’s bigots who are the ones who need to worry.

  • Coincidentally (or perhaps by the influence of Krishna) I just posted on “Friendship“.

    I think we largely misunderstand the nature of relationships and thus “friends” too.  The definition of “friend” is usually twisted to meet a person’s hopes and crushed when they don’t pan out.

  • Anonymous

     I’ll admit I had not thought about it in that light. You might be right. A very clever turning of the tables if it’s true.

  • Brian Scott

    A more appropriate analogy might be support for miscegenation.

    Make no mistake, the “asking for special privileges” argument is a pernicious falsehood.

  • Anonymous

    Being casual friends with someone like that I could understand maybe. But “best friends”? Best? Really? No, I don’t think so. Doesn’t work

    And yes, if he knows that revealing this will cost him this friendship, he knows exactly how much this means to his “friend”

  • Anonymous

     If you want pro-gay rights/fiscal conservatives try the Log Cabin Republicans.

    GOProud on the other hand are flat out batshit insane nutjobs. No one knows why they even exist, since there is nothing they won’t support. They aren’t actually in favor of any gay rights. They just rubber stamp the party platform. It’s nothing but an abuse relationship where they get beat up all the time, but stay in the vain hope that they’ll be loved.

  • Anonymous


    And being friends with an obvious idiot who believes such ridiculous lies is any better? If he explained his position that way, I wouldn’t let him even finish his “argument”, but walk away mid sentence

  • Anonymous

    The “If everyone were gay we would die out line” is such ridiculous bullshit. You try to approach this in a realistic manner, yet you immediately descend into nonsensical strawman. A strawman. That’s all it is. The fact is that the human gay population is almost certainly pretty much constant.

    There are animal populations with far higher rates of same-sex couples. For example one scientist studying an albatross colony found that something like 20-30% (can’t remember exactly) of the couples consisted of two females. In any case, it was extremely high. Yet, they did fine. It’s not necessarily in the best interest of a population to breed out of control. Especially if the food is scarce. And whatever it is, there seems to be some evolutionary advantage to having some spare couples around.

  • Jim Jones

    “If all penguins were homosexual the species would go extinct.”

    “If all humans were too fat to copulate the species would go extinct”.

    The USA seems set on a path to attempt a proof of this. But what’s your point?

    Biology works on the principle of “close enough”. If enough members of a species produce enough offspring to replace those which die the species continues. At 7 billion, humans have overshot this mark quite handily, despite the 10% who have a same sex preference and the portion who cannot reproduce for other reasons — and despite the fact that about 50000 people per day are needlessly dying because of starvation, disease and the like.

  • BinaryStar

    It’s funny, because I
    recently had a very similar experience with my dearest friend. We’ve drifted
    apart a bit over the last ten years or so, but we’ve kept in touch, off and on. Her husband recently became a “born-again”
    evangelical who won’t shut the f*ck up about Jesus, and she apparently went
    along for the ride, though to a lesser degree. When I discovered some of the
    awful things he’d written with regard to gay rights (the Political Views
    section of his Facebook profile reads only “No party affiliation: Anti-abortion/Anti same
    sex marriage”), I finally confronted her via e-mail to find out whether she agrees with him. She assured me that she (and her husband’s sister as well, with whom they
    live) agree that I should be able to marry my partner. She says she’s had many
    arguments with her husband over this very issue, which I was relieved to hear. (Although the old version of my friend would’ve had nothing to do with such an outright bigot. I guess the fact that he changed over time complicates the matter.)

    will say this in regard to the original post: had my friend replied that she
    did not agree with marriage equality, I would have indeed ended our
    relationship, right then and there. Although I love her dearly and we were as
    close as we could be back in the day, there is no way I would allow someone to
    be in my life (whom I can choose, unlike family) who thinks that I’m in any way
    less than she or he is. There are enough people out there who want to deny me basic rights, and I’ll be goddamned if I’m going to encourage them in any way.

    And one last thing, to those of you who defend or rationalize away the kind of thinking on the PostSecret card: whenever a gay person hears something like this come from the mouth of a so-called friend, it feels like a no hold-barred punch to the gut. (Or at least I know it certainly does for me.) So you’ll just have to excuse our angry reactions to betrayal. I don’t think most people take kindly to it.

  • BinaryStar

    BTW, I hate the way this commenting system screws with formatting. Does anyone know a way around it?

  • Anonymous

    Homosexuality is under normal circumstances humans are likely to encounter, all other things being equal, an inferior biological condition to heterosexuality. If all penguins were homosexual the species would go extinct. Human homosexuals can compensate with things like overcoming ones natural tastes, artificial insemination and the like but these have costs. So like with eyesight there is an objective superiority of heterosexuality over homosexuality with regards to reproduction.

    None of this has any relevance when it comes to the issue of civil marriage

    Absolutely nada.

    Reproduction ISN’T some ‘fundamental requirement/aspect’ of civil marriage, so why are you talking about it?

    Besides, there are thousands of gay people who have their own biological offspring.  Are people unaware of this?

    Oh and if all penguins were FEMALE (or male) the species would die out.  Does that make being female an issue of relevance?

  • FSq
  • Anonymous

     Perhaps GOProud is populated by more lying homophobes than actual self-hating homosexuals? I don’t know, but that would explain a lot.

  • Patrik W

    So the guy goes against an upbringing’s worth of brainwashing and being fed questionable moral values, to be someone’s friend?

    Good on him.

  • FSq

    Yep,, hell froze over again….I agree with AxeGril. She is dead on here.

    I would also add, that if the OP was true to his/her word, that would mean that any post-menopausal woman is off limits for the “dance with no pants” as it serves no function for procreation.

  • Michael

    You make a good argument for ending marriage entirely. I approve.

  • Brian Scott

    Er, make that support against* miscegenation. I keep forgetting miscegenation is just the word for mixed-race marriage, and the laws in question were technically “anti-miscegenation”.

  • If all males became Catholic priests the race would die out, too. 

  • Lord_Byron

    I have only been out for a couple years myself, since i was 16, but I was actually called a bigot myself, compared to the AFA and Labarbara or Robertson, because I said that I found it hard to respect LGBT conservatives. My point of view on it is that gay conservatives care more about their wallets than their rights as american citizens. I don’t get how you can belong to a party that hates you and who is made of many members that would be ok with them being executed or forced back into the closet. A gay conservative told me it was because they thought by being their they could change the conservation and make the GOP more inclusive. 

    Take for example Tony Fabrizio. He is gay and supports same-sex marriage, but also worked to get anti-lgbt republicans, rick scott and rick perry, elected to office.
    Their are different political ideas in the LGBT community, but to me it seems counter-intuitive to try and help get people elected who would love to see you gone. 

  • Shannon and all others who play the race card and the like, I understand that it is a proven fact in the atheist community that the most clevererest Christian is just one notch below the dumberest atheist in the world and that your dogma do not allow you to acknowledge a Christian refuting any of your beliefs.

    I therefore provide below an atheist’s explanation on why yous guys ought to stop playing the race card (and other similar cards for that matter – that bit was added by me so just ignore it, write it of as ‘spoken by a Christian, unworthy of consideration’):

    I further understand that he could be branded a heretic but at least hear the man out, I mean he is an atheist, he must have been intelligent at one point in time or something.

  • Tom

    If everyone was bisexual, the species wouldn’t go extinct, and it’s quite conceivable that two bisexuals could desire a same-sex marriage.  Have you considered that possibility?

  • Tom

    Not that I’m buying into your weird and ill-defined notion of biological inferiority, you understand, I’m just pointing out where that would seem to fail anyway.

    Everyone always forgets about bisexuals.

  • Anonymous

    No real way that I can tell. It happens whenever you copy-paste a piece of text. It can typically be avoided by writing everything directly on the comment window. Also if you’re a regular you could register with one of the various commenting systems. At least if you use Disqus (maybe others, I don’t know) that would mean that you can go back an edit comments once you see what’s gone screwy.

  • Anonymous

     Idiotic atheists exist by the truckload. Idiotic arguments, like the one you linked to, likewise exist. Though atheists by and large tend to be more enlightened on this issue than many of the religious, that of course is not always the case.

    The argument that same-sex marriage creates a “new institution” wheras interracial marriage did not is simply laughable. The author hilariously tries to argue that though there were always interracial couples but not gay couples is so blatantly untrue that it seems almost impossible to believe the author didn’t know that. People used to say that interracial marriage would “pervert” marriage as well, and was unprecedented etc. etc. Same damn arguments, and they still make no sense. Incidentally, even if something like that WERE unprecedented (unlike, say, polygamy or child marriage, that have a long history) that would not make it wrong. Tradition or the lack thereof are no justification for anything.

  • Every group of people has its share of idiots.  Is there a point you were trying to make?

    I would think people would get it by now that there are jerk atheists, jerk Christians, jerk Muslims, jerk Jews, jerk Hindus, jerk Buddhists, etc., etc. 

    If this was news to you, well, SURPRISE!

  • Anonymous

     I agree that coming out is the most politically important act that an LGBT person can do, but we need to emphasis the importance of coming out AND acting like a normal and pleasant human being. Don’t give bigots any further ammo by being anything but nice….If someone gets a bad vibe from a gay person, they’ll go, “See? Gays are different, and that’s why they shouldn’t have equal rights.” Probably the single person who has done the most to improve LGBT relations with the general population is Ellen Degeneres. She is out, but she doesn’t make a big deal out of it, and she is just a wonderful person. Seriously, if she can get Bill O’Reilly to say something supportive of LGBT people, then she’s doing something seriously right.

    It’s just like being an atheist….Absolutely come out, but also try to be a pleasant person at the same time. Atheists get a bad rap because too many of the open atheists are also openly disdainful and unpleasant to anyone who is a believer (which is most other people). When we come out, we need to emphasis that we are good, generous, caring, loving, and NORMAL.

  • amyc

    Sorry ReadinTrees, I understand what your goal is, but I don’t like the implications here.

    It’s like if I said to my black friend that they had to speak/write/read perfectly otherwise it gives credence to racists who think black people can’t do those things (even though plenty of white people are terrible at grammar/spelling).

    It also sounds a lot like the way I and many other women are treated in math/science classes (and the way I was treated as a math tutor). If a girl makes less than an “A,” it’s because girls are bad at math, but if the boy sitting next to her makes less than an “A,” it’s because that boy had a bad test day or just needed to study a little harder. This usually results in the girl having to be twice as good as any boy in order to be taken seriously.

    There were many people (both fellow tutors and some of the “tutees”) who were taken aback when they came in to schedule an appointment with a math tutor and I (being a girl) said that I was available. I had to scrupulously explain things, because the very people who were coming to me for help seemed to think I didn’t know what I was doing (even though some of these people were having to learn how to add and subtract negative numbers…on a number line…seriously, these were college students). I should add, the ones who came regularly to their scheduled appointments saw at least a full letter grade improvement over the semester (we had to keep track of improvement rates). This was true across the board for all of the tutors, both male and female.

    Lgbt people and atheists are just like everybody else. We all have our own personalities, and we shouldn’t have to change our behavior or be scrupulously nice just for the bigots. I’m not saying we shouldn’t be nice people, I just think that should be a general rule for everybody (which I’m sure you would agree).

    A person should be judged as an individual, not as a default representative of whatever minority to which they belong. Lgbt and atheist people need to be treated like people and act like people…period, because they are people. We need to spread that message far and wide.

    I understand your sentiment, and I agree that the single most important thing to changing a bigot’s mind is for them to personally know an lgbt person or atheist, but the onus is on the bigot to…well, not be a bigot.

  • amyc

    Lol, I make that mistake too sometimes.

  • amyc

    That’s because there are “no bisexuals”.


    /snark (just in case)

  • Anonymous

    Jeezoids.  Where do these stereotypes come from?  It would never even occur to me to think women were inferior at math and science.  My female tutor saved my ass in 12th grade Calculus.

  • Anonymous

    Stevie Wonder > Me.

  • Anonymous

    I don’t think the cleverest Christian is a notch below the dumbest atheist.  Not at all.  Some of my closest friends and many of the people I look up to for influence and inspiration are Christians, and still more are religious folks of other stripes.  I value these people infinitely more than the 16-year old brat who goes around posting “F@$^ CHRISTIANS” on message boards.

  • Anonymous

    … at music, not seeing.

  • Anonymous

    Well some people are intolerant like you.

  • Anonymous

    The original definition of marriage allows for gays marrying straights, and gays marrying gays just so long as they are of the opposite sex. So the analogy doesn’t work.

    His entire world view is a pernicious falsehood in all likelihood, yet he can be correct on specific issues. Sure he may be wrong ( assuming he believes) that gay marriage is a special right, however some gays do ask for special rights. For example speech codes and hate crime laws that would give gays special privileges in not having their behavior criticized and extra penalties for identical crimes against their members. A general statement that is anti-gay rights has a lot of wiggle room to actually be partially right, and partially wrong.

    Guess what. I betcha if I talked with you for a while I could find many issue on which you are against my natural rights.

  • Anonymous

    He wasn’t talking about couples. He was talking about the institution of marriage. Is it your claim that the institution of homosexual marriage in western society has always existed? Interracial marriage has, and was specifically outlawed after the fact and for certain races only. His claim that some people are ignorant of history rings true despite you calling him an idiot where in fact it seems you are in the wrong.

    Ignorance and idiocy are two entirely different things. Maybe you have facts on your side that He and I are ignorant of, but calling him an idiot only makes it look like you can’t make a good case. So far you have failed because you didn’t address his claims. He backed his arguments with factually correct statements that addressed his opponents arguments. try doing the same.

  • Anonymous

    It wasn’t supposed to be an argument against gay marriage. It was addressing a very narrow issue. So yes it has nada to do with it because I never intended it to be about that. It was about viewing specific traits as inferior or superior. Sterile people don’t produce children and ARE inferior in that regard. That’s no reason why they shouldn’t get married. There are plenty of other reasons to get married. I was arguing against the idea that one cannot be friends with people you view inferior in one way or another.

  • Anonymous

    Really how?

  • Anonymous

    My point is that certain traits are objectively inferior with regards to certain activities. That was the point of the sentence not the entire comment.

    Don’t interject all sorts of other stupid straw man arguments please.

  • Anonymous

    I didn’t. It’s also possible that homosexual genes are adaptive if they consist of only a portion of the gene pool. They however play a subservient role in that case.

    The point is that it is NOT unreasonable to view homosexuality as an inferior attribute, and undesirable, just like being blind is objectively inferior. It’s the author of the article who is getting confused between a single attribute and the entire human, not me. It seems that quite a few of the commenters are confused on this issue also. Thinking that this would force one not to be a true friend to someone who has an inferior attribute.

    The issue of partial inferiority on single attributes, overall individual inferiority or superiority, or anyone’s opinions on such is totally orthogonal to friendship. You guys are totally confused. I think in part because you confuse recognition of specific inferiority with bigotry. Recognizing that a blind person is inferior are driving a car is not the same as assuming someone can’t drive because they are a woman.

  • Anonymous

    Yes, true. Good argument that vows of celibacy are a good way to procreate. Thanks for making my point.

  • Anonymous

    I didn’t say it would cause the human race to die out. Stop taking stupid positions on my behalf. Your complaint of a straw man is itself a straw man.

  • Anonymous

    I agree that there’s not enough evidence to jump to conclusions.  I’m not even convinced the picture isn’t an attempt at some sort of joke, social commentary, or pointless drama-stirring.

  • Mindi6739

    What the hekk are you
    talking about i showed
    my mom and dad and
    they don’t even know
    what are talking about

  • mindi6739

    OMG!!!!!! I really did not think that you where talking about  GAY people

error: Content is protected !!