Michael and Catherine Burke allege that the state’s Department of Children and Families discriminated against them for their Catholic viewpoints.

  • diprount_tomato
    link
    -381 year ago

    Someone who’d unironically say what I did would think the same

    • @kescusay
      link
      301 year ago

      And they’d be wrong.

      There’s a common misconception that there are two sides to any issue. Sounds reasonable, right? Everyone loves compromise and meeting in the middle.

      But homophobic and transphobic bigots are just wrong. They’re provably, factually incorrect, and have an argument with reality itself. They’re on the same level as Flat-Earthers or people who think 1 + 1 = 3. And yes, they’ll say the same thing about me, and they’ll be wrong and stupid when they do that. Why worry that the wrong, stupid, and hateful people think they’re right? Why lend their hate even the veneer of credibility?

      You can’t “meet in the middle” with people who reject reality. 1 + 1 = 2.5 is just as incorrect as 1 + 1 = 3.

      • diprount_tomato
        link
        -141 year ago

        I can prove 1+1=2 by axioms, you can’t prove the Earth is flat. Simple as

        • @kescusay
          link
          3
          edit-2
          1 year ago

          Someone crazy can tell you your actions are wrong. Someone crazy can insist on all kinds of things that are crazy, and insist that you are the crazy person. And by their standards, you can’t disprove it.

          So is there any point in arguing with such a person? Or lending any credence to their perspectives?

          People who believe LGBTQ+ people are “groomers” or doing something unnatural are objectively wrong, and the fact that they believe they’re right doesn’t change that, nor does it obligate me to treat their mistaken beliefs as anything but the mistakes they are, and I won’t pretend otherwise or grant their hate and bigotry any respect.

          • diprount_tomato
            link
            -51 year ago

            Why are they objectively wrong? I can’t prove they are objectively right either but you seem confident that they are. So please, give me the info to shut their mouths off

            • @kescusay
              link
              81 year ago

              Which angle would you like to look at it from?

              Religious? Religions don’t universally condemn homosexuality, and even if they did, there is no reason to believe any one religion is actually right about it (or anything else).

              Nature? The existence of animals that engage in homosexual relationships is well known, and there are even animals that display the behaviors of the opposite sex, so it’s not like there’s a single leg for bigots to stand on scientifically.

              “Grooming” children? That’s not a thing with LGBTQ+ people. Sure you can find one or two examples here and there, but there’s no evidence that a statistically significant portion of LGBTQ+ people abuse children. In fact, the opposite is true. There is zero evidence at all that a statistically large proportion of abusers are LGBTQ+. So the revolting “groomer” accusations are literally just made-up, disgusting garbage, and the people making that up are doing so strictly to hurt people who haven’t hurt anyone else.

              So yes, they are objectively wrong, by every conceivable measure.

              But good luck convincing one. These are reality-challenged people, confidently asserting shit they know nothing about, and utterly impervious to learning that they are wrong.

              Sometimes the only thing that actually can get through to someone like that is finding out their own beloved family members are gay. That sometimes works. But it’s like they can’t even conceptualize the idea that they’re wrong until it happens to them.

              • diprount_tomato
                link
                -3
                edit-2
                1 year ago

                I mean yeah, religions criticise lust and “casual sex” more than the gender of those involved