Reply #29: Conflict and conversation-See how that works

[mentalslavery]

I realize that it is du's policy to ban people who disagree with gay marriage but banning people will not change minds. If we do not change minds then what does that say about our ability to change the situation. I understand that it is hurtful conversation, but that does not mean we should not have it. The vast differences between us mean that we should face it head on. It is a shame that we can not talk about this. More radical and liberal democrats need to reach out to conservative democrats, not disown them. It is a counterproductive emotional response. We need all the help we can get. Lots of dems don't support it, so how does our isolation from them create the support we need. Banned people go away mad and deepens their opposition because they feel that one policy issue is the reason for their rejection. I have had lots of conversations about gay rights with dems who don't agree with it. Part of their opposition is because they have been attacked by people regarding their opposition. They are more reluctant to come around because of the hurt feelings. People talk about how much this issue means to them but are not willing to discuss it because of hurt feelings. Shouldn't we forgo our hurt feelings as recognition of higher ideals-open debate-changing minds-changing laws-changing the world? As a sociologist I can tell you this forum has the potential to do that, but banning conversation about this issue with conservative dems will actually lead to internal resistance. It is the same problem that we see with the blue dogs in congress.