Yes, we can.

[Motorboat Cruiser]

Originally Posted by Alex

Would you agree that there are ideas sufficiently repugnant that they should not be given even token acknowledgment?

If millions of people agree with those ideas, I think they should be acknowledged. That's not to say that I think they should be accepted or endorsed, but we damned well better acknowledge their existence because they aren't going away anytime soon. There is power in numbers, the power to vote. And if we fail to acknowledge them, we will continue to wonder how things like Prop 8 passed.

I'm not sure if I believe there is a line or not, because I tend to think that there is no stance unworthy of consideration. There are many that upon examining, I would completely disagree with, but I'm certainly not going to pretend that they don't exist, especially in cases when half of the nation agrees with them. A guy like Fred Phelps, who has a handful of followers, I'm not much concerned with him because he has no power. Millions of people in lockstep do have power though, significant power. That doesn't make their view any more acceptable in my opinion, but it makes it far more worthy of acknowlegement.

And you don't change large groups of people all at once, you change them one at a time, a tedious and frustrating process, but one that has been proven to work.

Obama could have easily picked someone safer. He chose not to because he is trying to make a point that seems to be escaping a lot of people, that sometimes you can make far greater gains by showing a little respect than by alienating and dividing people further. Warren showed a bit of respect to Obama by allowing him to speak at his church even though he disagreed with him on just about everything, and Obama is responding in kind - saying I do not agree with you but I will show you the same respect you showed me. Maybe that will have a positive effect and maybe it will not, but if nothing else, it shows that Obama is a man of his word. That's a lot more than I can say about the guy currently occupying the White House.

[Alex]

Originally Posted by Motorboat Cruiser

And you don't change large groups of people all at once, you change them one at a time, a tedious and frustrating process, but one that has been proven to work.

I'm still waiting for an example of it. I'm sure there must be some but I don't think it is the standard path to significant change.

Obama could have easily picked someone safer. He chose not to because he is trying to make a point that seems to be escaping a lot of people, that sometimes you can make far greater gains by showing a little respect than by alienating and dividing people further.

It isn't escaping me that this is the point you're trying to make. I just don't think you're correct in its possible impacts. Especially since, as you say, gay marriage is not likely to come up.

I agree a political decision was made: it is better to please this group and piss off that group than to pick someone neither side would have remarked upon. In the long term it may prove to be good politics.

For me, there is a line in the sand. You are free to hold whatever opinions you wish, but there is a point at which I, personally, will not do anything help prop you up so you can continue expounding on them. Now, for Obama this is probably easier since he does not support gay marriage so for Obama and Warren the question is merely how far they'll go in arguing against it. So, it is good politics? Quite possibly. Is it still a big **** you to a significant portion of the gay community? Yes.

[Kevy Baby]

Originally Posted by Motorboat Cruiser

But when you give someone like Bill O'Reilly a national audience, his popularity eventually fades and he soon wakes to find himself a laughingstock that fewer and fewer people agree with.

Originally Posted by Alex

I don't think I've seen much evidence of this. Can you provide examples? Bill O'Reilly certainly hasn't faded significantly.

Before I even saw Alex's question, I thought of two examples where the person had worked themselves to the laughingstock point: Jerry Falwell and Rush Limbaugh. Sure, they still have their followers, but they did/have become mostly impotent.

[Motorboat Cruiser]

Originally Posted by Alex

I'm still waiting for an example of it. I'm sure there must be some but I don't think it is the standard path to significant change.

To date, I think that gay rights is a perfect example of it. Most people who have changed their mind, from not thinking gay people deserve rights to those that do, have done so based on a personal experience in their life, whether it is having a family member come out and re-thinking their position, to meeting a gay person they respected and taking a some time to get to know them. Much easier to hate the abstract, than it it is to hate a good person staring you in the face.

I know plenty of people who have changed their mind over the years, and it was never as a result of force or ridicule. It was a result of realizing they were wrong because the issue was finally personalized for them, for lack of a better word.

Sure, you can force people to comply through the force of law, and often that is necessary, but those people won't do so willingly and, in fact, it is unlikely to change their underlying prejudice. There are still plenty of racists out there who still detest people of color because that is what they have been taught at an early age. They might not be able to discriminate against them in the workplace, but that doesn't stop them from occassionally dragging them from the back of a pickup truck when nobody is watching.

My opinion is that it is better in the long run to try and change minds through dialog, rather than force because only the former results in true change.

Edited to add: And even using force to change things requires every vote we can muster. And the ones that already agree with the cause simply don't have the numbers yet. Changing people one at a time becomes even more vital when it comes to the bigger fight. There is simply no way to get this legislation passed unless a significant amount of people on the opposing side can be convinced to change their vote. Calling them names, yelling at them and boycotting their weddings simply isn't going to accomplish that. Anger rarely changes anyone's mind, which was my original point.

[Not Afraid]

Originally Posted by Motorboat Cruiser

My opinion is that it is better in the long run to try and change minds through dialog, rather than force because only the former results in true change.

I would agree that change happens through dialog and experience however it becomes a dialog as a result of the issue being on the front of people's minds - and public protests are a way to keep the issue in the forefront and therefore extremely necessary.

[Motorboat Cruiser]

Originally Posted by Not Afraid

I would agree that change happens through dialog and experience however it becomes a dialog as a result of the issue being on the front of people's minds - and public protests are a way to keep the issue in the forefront and therefore extremely necessary.

I don't disagree at all. The problem is that those who used the occasion to ridicule people with religious beliefs aren't doing anyone any favors. You don't want a protest to insult the very people who were willing to vote "no" even when their church said to vote "yes." I don't want those people rethinking their support because of a sign that insulted them. We need every vote we can get if we are going to be successful next time, because this time we were clearly outnumbered.