There is plenty of anger on both sides. The right wing are angry and perceive that they are being wronged. Sure, from the other side we can see that they aren't, but who is to act as the arbiter of acceptable anger?
I think expressions of anger are great, they are cathartic, and they can rally the base. But if you want to change everything, you need more than anger: you need a rational argument.
I think the other side has a vested interest in keeping the debate based on emotions. They intentional bait queer groups to get them react emotionally rather than rationally. Why? Because, there are plenty of rational arguments for equal rights and not as many against them. On rational grounds, we have the upper hand. On emotional grounds, tradition does.
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png)
timeasmymeasure
no subject
Date: 2006-10-04 02:38 pm (UTC)I think expressions of anger are great, they are cathartic, and they can rally the base. But if you want to change everything, you need more than anger: you need a rational argument.
I think the other side has a vested interest in keeping the debate based on emotions. They intentional bait queer groups to get them react emotionally rather than rationally. Why? Because, there are plenty of rational arguments for equal rights and not as many against them. On rational grounds, we have the upper hand. On emotional grounds, tradition does.