<p>Which are you?</p>
<p>I’m semipermeable minded.</p>
<p>^Same. Totally agree</p>
<p>Most of the time I’m pretty open-minded but if I feel strongly about something, then hell no</p>
<p>To be honest, I’m more closed minded. Maybe this is because I’m still in HS, I’m 17, and I live in a secure environment.</p>
<p>According to the world, I’m ignorant and closed minded because I don’t support abortion, homosexuality, premarital sex, substance abuse, & atheism. Yet, I am completely open to the idea of not giving a sh,it about what the world thinks</p>
<p>^ If the world can’t accept your beliefs and reasons, then “they” are closed minded IMO. I try to listen to others’ opinions and morals. People think they’re so damn open to everything if they, say, support homosexual marriage, but infact if they are unwilling to listen to somebody who is against it because of their religious beliefs, then they’re being closed minded.</p>
<p>I am open minded to the extent that I will listen to what other people have to say and respect their opinions about something.</p>
<p>But I am not open minded to people limiting my rights just because THEY are close minded. For example, it’s quite all right if you don’t like gay marriage. Really, I’m fine with that (despite what people might think). But I am not ok with your personal bias keeping me from marrying the consenting adult of my choice.</p>
<p>^ That sounds really reasonable to me. I think I’m a little like that. I won’t be forced to change my opinion, but I do listen to other people’s.</p>
<p>I consider myself to be very open-minded.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>No, that is not being close-minded. Once realizing that someone is supporting his or her argument against homosexual marriage from a purely religious perspective, one can ignore those arguments without compromising open-mindedness. It would only be close-mindedness if one were to disregard an argument for an issue while knowing only that the argument opposed his or her position; the argument could turn out to be based in logic (unlike those in religion).</p>
<p>^^^What if the majority voted against your opinion though?</p>
<p>^ Then so what? We are not a majority-rule country and we were never meant to be. </p>
<p>96% of people were against interracial marriage when it was legalized.</p>
<p>I don’t think it’s the government’s job to limit anything between consenting adults. Nor is it their job to regulate one’s own body. Etc.</p>
<p>That’s odd, because it seems as though a lot of laws are implemented based on what the majority finds preferable (within reason anyway).</p>
<p>I think that the interpretation of the Constitution has served as somewhat of an obstacle in terms of legalizing certain actions/concepts though.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>My sentiments exactly. </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>THANK GOD. This is why Prop 8 made me so angry. Civil rights issues are issues for the supreme courts, not majority rule.</p>
<p>^^ Not really. The majority of civil rights were implemented by the courts. Oppressive laws came from the masses.</p>
<p>^ Isn’t that generally what #14 meant?
“Civil rights issues are issues for the supreme courts”
“The majority of civil rights were implemented by the courts”</p>
<p>They way I see it, the people pressure the courts to pass civil rights laws. (In today’s time)</p>
<p>Common example: Civil rights movement. Huge civil rights rallies in major cities. March on Washington DC. A large majority of the black population and (some) white population pressured politicians. They pressured Kennedy and especially Lyndon Johnson to pass the Civil Rights Acts of 1965 (something like that).</p>
<p>If I said I was open-minded, that would be bragging. So I’ll just think I’m closed-minded until I have strong evidence to the contrary.</p>
<p>^^ I was responding to Warts.</p>
<p>Hence the “^^” meaning… 2 posts up.</p>
<p>fail on my part. =D</p>
<p>I suppose so.</p>
<p>I somewhat understand what you were trying to state earlier.</p>
<p>Thanks for the clarification.</p>