>Seriously, is it any wonder that many people resist such change when before the debate begins >they are labeled bigot, small minded, etc.? Humanizing those involved is by far the most >effective means of effecting social change – name calling and motive impugning is the least.
It isn't fair, but it is one of those logical extrapolations. ;) I was exaggerating.
But this goes both ways. It is not like the opposition to repealing DADL is being polite and reasonable. Certainly, some are. But plenty of the opposition starts from Gays are unfit because they are morally depraved. The opposition to gays in the military is largely based on a religious moral belief, not some scientific fact of the unfitness of duty. I am unsure why the starting point has to be "You believe homosexuality is immoral and that is an equally valid view." Those that feel homosexuality is immoral do not enter the debate with that attitude.
So, what is a way for the gay rights activist to disagree and avoid the person in opposition interpretting the disagreement as "your a homophobe!" Kanye West said George bush doesn't care about black people... George Bush and his supporters heard "George Bush is a racist!"
How do we say, "I think your opinion is incorrect, and hurts citizens" in a way that doesn't say in their heads "your a homophobe"?
Thom
http://thomwade.wordpress.com/
http://www.cafepress.com/Thomwade
http://www.in-one-ear.com
_______________________________________
"I want a song to learn and sing, of a life requited."-Echo & the Bunnymen
--
dadl-ot mailing list
http://mail.thehood.us/mailman/listinfo/dadl-ot_thehood.us
http://news.gmane.org/gmane.music.dadl.ot
lmpx.com only provides a reader for public news (NNTP) servers. It is not
affiliated with the servers or forums shown here and is not responsible for
the content of articles, which is written by their respective authors.