Who are the real bigots?

[JakeStarkey]

Liar.

Clothes NAZI.

please put your underwear and pants back on!

 

[bigrebnc1775]

Clothes NAZI.

please put your underwear and pants back on!

Only a faggot would imagine a man out of his clothes.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

On some levels, the mind is almost biologically inclined toward bigotry. That is, we all divide reality into chunks - good, bad, normal, abnormal. We all have a native reaction to the shifting phantasmagoria of shapes objects colors smells and people that drift into and out of our purview. Nobody views the world through dispassionate, clinical, neutral eyes. In fact, believing that your country or your group is special or "chosen" is important for national survival - meaning: soldiers don't die for the periodic table; they die because they think their nation is sacred/special/superior.

So yes, we all have strong opinions on what is good and what is bad ....superior and inferior. But, tragically, only the right wants Washington to enforce their special list of sacred things. Only the right wants Washington to force their brand of morality on the states.

I say to hell with Washington-codified marriage. I say get rid of Washington-based marriage - gay, straight, farm animal. Don't give that power to Washington. Let the free individual decide what is sacred. At least let the states decide.

Conservatives want Big Brother to enforce the Sacred. They crave big government. As for me, I don't want Washington to stand between myself and God. Let him judge me. I don't need some brownshirt endorsing my marriage (but the Right does need government - they always have). The government should issue contracts to consenting adults so that they can participate in the juridical and financial elements of partnership BUT they should not weigh-in on the sacred content of the soul; they should not decide things like the love between consenting adults. They should return the content of things like "Love" and "marriage" to free individuals. The world only works when the marketplace of possibilities is as expansive as free consenting adults want to make them.

I remember when a bunch of Conservatives in my town tried to shut down businesses which they found distasteful. They were opposed not by the commie Liberals, but by Libertarians who said "government had no business telling people what to sell. Let the market decide. If free consumers don't want to buy what someone is selling, than so be it - the market - not government - will shut them down. Trust the people to know what is good and bad. Trust consenting adults to define marriage for themselves. Don't let Washington tell consenting adults who they can (or how they should) love. Get Government off the backs of free people. Period.

Attention Rightwing: stop making Washington bigger. We're sick of it. Let free adults decide for themselves.

You were doing so well, then you stuck your foot in your mouth and choked.

If the right are the only ones that want Washington to enforce their sacred list of special things how do you explain the uproar over the Delta Smelt? Do you think that a little fish matters more than feeding millions of people in anyone's mind because they actually weighed the various factors logically? The sacred things on the left are just as important to them, and they are just as willing to use Washington to promote their religion. Just because you agree with that religion does not make it right.

Your bigotry is a lot larger than you think it is.

Show me where the left wants to use the government to promote their religion. I am sure there is some cases, but nothing like the right. Wanting to deny a person a right because their religious book tells them that their life style is wrong is allowing one's religion to shape a law.
Other than what the bible says about homosexuals, and without using procreation as an argument, please tell me why two consenting adults should not be allowed to marry?

Before you argue, the reason why I took out procreation is because many straight couples cannot have children together. Using that argument doesn't work in the modern age.

If you say gay marriage your are full of shit.

I did, or did you miss the reference to the Delta Smelt? The idea that fish have the same legal rights as humans is based religious precepts, just like the idea that unborn children have the same right to life as born children do is. Get you head out of your ass and read what I am posting.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

koshergirl lives in a world of delusion along with her running buds.

Just sayin'.

Good morning, koshergirl.

Quite true, but at least she doesn't believe that dressing like a slut turns women into lesbians.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

LOL I have repeatedly asked you questions throughout this thread and haven't gotten any real responses and now you try to hold your answers ransom until I answer your question again. LOL

You made allegations and false claims so I asked you to provde the substance and you failed. Now you are arguing that you will answer my questions if I answer yours AGAIN but somehow I don't buy it.

Yes, you have repeatedly asked me questions. I even answered them, for a while. Feel free to ask as many more as you want, just don't expect me to answer any more until you actually answer my one, rather simple, question.

So even though you have avoided and refused to answer my questions you expect me to answer yours when I already have but you missed it and now pretend it never happened?

My questions were simple too and unlike me you never even bothered to answer so it's hilarious taht you are trying to hide behind the "answer my question first" bs.

You didn't answer them to begin with so why should I believe that you will answer them even after I answer your question AGAIN?

No. The part you are upset about is I actually stopped answering your questions because you won't answer mine. In other words, you expect me to answer your questions even though you haven't answered mine.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Clothes NAZI.

please put your underwear and pants back on!

Only a faggot would imagine a man out of his clothes.

Or a man aware of another man's failings.

 

[JakeStarkey]

koshergirl lives in a world of delusion along with her running buds. Just sayin'. Good morning, koshergirl.

Quite true, but at least she doesn't believe that dressing like a slut turns women into lesbians.

I would hope she does not believe such a thing, or you either for that matter.

 

[koshergrl]

What the HELL is a running bud?

I'm not sure how slutty dressing would turn women into lesbians. It doesn't even make sense to me, so it seems I don't believe that.

 

[Vast LWC]

One is not less of a Bigot because they act from fear or ignorance.

They are simply a cowardly, stupid bigot.

 

[Foxfyre]

There are many valid arguments for preserving and protecting traditional marriage that have absolutely nothing to do with anybody's opinion about gay people.

There is a strong level of bigotry involved in an unwillingness to include those arguments into the debate without labeling those presenting them as intolerant, bigots, homophobes, hatemongers or worse.

For instance, the gay people among my family are family. And deeply loved. The closest thing I have to a godson is gay, I love him dearly, and his life partner is one of my favorite Facebook game buddies and I look forward to meeting him in person. (They live 1600 miles away.) Our next door neighbors are a gay couple (guys) that we exchange baked goods with and visit with several times a week. My secretary, self identified as lesbian, was one of the best damn secretaries I've ever had and I was privileged to attend her 'wedding'. My second in command at a large social agency I headed was lesbian and remains a good friend to this day long after we both moved on to other things. She has been a guest in our home on more occasions than I can remember.

And I would still probably vote to preserve the traditional definition of marriage for reasons totally unrelated to homosexuality.

Again tolerance works both ways and requires understanding from more than one point of view.

 

[NLT]

Show me where the left wants to use the government to promote their religion. I am sure there is some cases, but nothing like the right. Wanting to deny a person a right because their religious book tells them that their life style is wrong is allowing one's religion to shape a law.
Other than what the bible says about homosexuals, and without using procreation as an argument, please tell me why two consenting adults should not be allowed to marry?

Before you argue, the reason why I took out procreation is because many straight couples cannot have children together. Using that argument doesn't work in the modern age.

If you say gay marriage your are full of shit.

The progressive religion is atheism, abortion, and homosexuality.

Now come again?

Our religion is abortion and homosexuality?
Do I pray to RuPaul and Ellen?

 

[Vast LWC]

There are many valid arguments for preserving and protecting traditional marriage that have absolutely nothing to do with anybody's opinion about gay people.

There is a strong level of bigotry involved in an unwillingness to include those arguments into the debate without labeling those presenting them as intolerant, bigots, homophobes, hatemongers or worse.

For instance, the gay people among my family are family. And deeply loved. The closest thing I have to a godson is gay, I love him dearly, and his life partner is one of my favorite Facebook game buddies and I look forward to meeting him in person. (They live 1600 miles away.) Our next door neighbors are a gay couple (guys) that we exchange baked goods with and visit with several times a week. My secretary, self identified as lesbian, was one of the best damn secretaries I've ever had and I was privileged to attend her 'wedding'. My second in command at a large social agency I headed was lesbian and remains a good friend to this day long after we both moved on to other things. She has been a guest in our home on more occasions than I can remember.

And I would still probably vote to preserve the traditional definition of marriage for reasons totally unrelated to homosexuality.

Again tolerance works both ways and requires understanding from more than one point of view.

Voting to deny the same rights to one group of Americans that others enjoy is not, by any stretch of the imagination, "Tolerance".

You can redefine it any way you want, trying to deny homosexuals the same rights enjoyed by straight people, because you don't like their sexual preference, is pretty much the definition of "bigoted", and unconstitutional, as per the 14th amendment.

If you were to allow for a state-defined Civil Union, and then a religious definition where some Civil Unions are considered "marriage", then that would be one thing, as you could apply the same rights and privileges under the law to both arrangements, and no rights would be denied...

But that's not what NC did, is it?

North Carolina not only denied homosexuals the right to marriage, but they specifically made any civil union or any type of common-law marriage illegal.

Which makes the people in NC who voted for that particular bit of crap ignorant bigots.

 

[Foxfyre]

There are many valid arguments for preserving and protecting traditional marriage that have absolutely nothing to do with anybody's opinion about gay people.

There is a strong level of bigotry involved in an unwillingness to include those arguments into the debate without labeling those presenting them as intolerant, bigots, homophobes, hatemongers or worse.

For instance, the gay people among my family are family. And deeply loved. The closest thing I have to a godson is gay, I love him dearly, and his life partner is one of my favorite Facebook game buddies and I look forward to meeting him in person. (They live 1600 miles away.) Our next door neighbors are a gay couple (guys) that we exchange baked goods with and visit with several times a week. My secretary, self identified as lesbian, was one of the best damn secretaries I've ever had and I was privileged to attend her 'wedding'. My second in command at a large social agency I headed was lesbian and remains a good friend to this day long after we both moved on to other things. She has been a guest in our home on more occasions than I can remember.

And I would still probably vote to preserve the traditional definition of marriage for reasons totally unrelated to homosexuality.

Again tolerance works both ways and requires understanding from more than one point of view.

Voting to deny the same rights to one group of Americans that others enjoy is not, by any stretch of the imagination, "Tolerance".

You can redefine it any way you want, trying to deny homosexuals the same rights enjoyed by straight people, because you don't like their sexual preference, is pretty much the definition of "bigoted", and unconstitutional, as per the 14th amendment.

If you were to allow for a state-defined Civil Union, and then a religious definition where some Civil Unions are considered "marriage", then that would be one thing, as you could apply the same rights and privileges under the law to both arrangements, and no rights would be denied...

But that's not what NC did, is it?

North Carolina not only denied homosexuals the right to marriage, but they specifically made any civil union or any type of common-law marriage illegal.

Which makes the people in NC who voted for that particular bit of crap ignorant bigots.

Intolerance also seems to create a reading dysfunction that makes people read into an argument an element that simply is not there.

 

[drsmith1072]

Yes, you have repeatedly asked me questions. I even answered them, for a while. Feel free to ask as many more as you want, just don't expect me to answer any more until you actually answer my one, rather simple, question.

So even though you have avoided and refused to answer my questions you expect me to answer yours when I already have but you missed it and now pretend it never happened?

My questions were simple too and unlike me you never even bothered to answer so it's hilarious taht you are trying to hide behind the "answer my question first" bs.

You didn't answer them to begin with so why should I believe that you will answer them even after I answer your question AGAIN?

No. The part you are upset about is I actually stopped answering your questions because you won't answer mine. In other words, you expect me to answer your questions even though you haven't answered mine.

LOL keep telling yourself that coward. I answered your question earlier in this thread and recently but I sincerely doubt that you will have the integrity to go back and respond to mine.

and now that I have read down I see that you have not responded to my answer to your question. Imagine that.

http://www.usmessageboard.com/5286466-post311.html

http://www.usmessageboard.com/5286566-post313.html

 

[Vast LWC]

Intolerance also seems to create a reading dysfunction that makes people read into an argument an element that simply is not there.

So, you support civil unions for homosexual couples that confer all the same rights and privileges upon them that straight married couples enjoy?

If so, then I have no beef with your point of view whatsoever.

You can call "marriages" whatever you want, so long as all rights are protected equally under the law.

 

[Foxfyre]

Intolerance also seems to create a reading dysfunction that makes people read into an argument an element that simply is not there.

So, you support civil unions for homosexual couples that confer all the same rights and privileges upon them that straight married couples enjoy?

If so, then I have no beef with your point of view whatsoever.

You can call "marriages" whatever you want, so long as all rights are protected equally under the law.

I have no problem and HAVE supported a concept of civil unions not just for homosexual couples, but for ALL who need to form themselves into family units that would offer the protections and privileges that they need but who for whatever reason cannot or do not wish to enter into a traditional marriage defined as a man or woman.

I don't see gay people as their own group. I see them as people. I oppose special privileges for special interest groups of all types. I do support treating everybody as people with the same rights as everybody else.

And my point of view is not the least bit homophobic. And I still would most likely vote to defend the traditional definition of marriage and that would have nothing whatsoever to do with any opinion, good or bad, that I hold of people who happen to be gay.

 

[Vast LWC]

I have no problem and HAVE supported a concept of civil unions not just for homosexual couples, but for ALL who need to form themselves into family units that would offer the protections and privileges that they need but who for whatever reason cannot or do not wish to enter into a traditional marriage defined as a man or woman.

I don't see gay people as their own group. I see them as people. I oppose special privileges for special interest groups of all types. I do support treating everybody as people with the same rights as everybody else.

And my point of view is not the least bit homophobic. And I still would most likely vote to defend the traditional definition of marriage and that would have nothing whatsoever to do with any opinion, good or bad, that I hold of people who happen to be gay.

Then we have no disagreement, you are not a bigoted person.

However, the law that was recently passed in North Carolina was not in any way similar to the point of view you just expressed. And that is of course, what triggered all this.

And I'm pos repping you for my incorrect assumption.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

So even though you have avoided and refused to answer my questions you expect me to answer yours when I already have but you missed it and now pretend it never happened?

My questions were simple too and unlike me you never even bothered to answer so it's hilarious taht you are trying to hide behind the "answer my question first" bs.

You didn't answer them to begin with so why should I believe that you will answer them even after I answer your question AGAIN?

No. The part you are upset about is I actually stopped answering your questions because you won't answer mine. In other words, you expect me to answer your questions even though you haven't answered mine.

LOL keep telling yourself that coward. I answered your question earlier in this thread and recently but I sincerely doubt that you will have the integrity to go back and respond to mine.

and now that I have read down I see that you have not responded to my answer to your question. Imagine that.

http://www.usmessageboard.com/5286466-post311.html

http://www.usmessageboard.com/5286566-post313.html

I see the problem, you think that setting up a straw man and beating the crap out of it is answering questions. Funny thing, whenever anyone else does that you call it lying.

 

[Foxfyre]

I have no problem and HAVE supported a concept of civil unions not just for homosexual couples, but for ALL who need to form themselves into family units that would offer the protections and privileges that they need but who for whatever reason cannot or do not wish to enter into a traditional marriage defined as a man or woman.

I don't see gay people as their own group. I see them as people. I oppose special privileges for special interest groups of all types. I do support treating everybody as people with the same rights as everybody else.

And my point of view is not the least bit homophobic. And I still would most likely vote to defend the traditional definition of marriage and that would have nothing whatsoever to do with any opinion, good or bad, that I hold of people who happen to be gay.

Then we have no disagreement, you are not a bigoted person.

However, the law that was recently passed in North Carolina was not in any way similar to the point of view you just expressed. And that is of course, what triggered all this.

And I'm pos repping you for my incorrect assumption.

Aw thanks LWC, but you're allowed to have incorrect assumptions about me. Almost everybody does.

No, I know I am not in the least bit homophobic, judgmental about homosexuality, or bigoted. And I fully understand the reason behind the NC law, but I do wish they had worded it differently. You get such strong language in the face of what many pro-traditional-marriage folks consider a full fledged frontal assault. If both sides could just back up, take the wrong assumptions out of it, and really discuss the pros and cons of the whole thing, I think we could get to the place that everybody needs to be much more quickly.

But as long as we have those on the right making it a religious issue, and those on the left accusing anybody who is pro traditional mariage of being homophobic bigots, no constructive dialogue is likely to take place.

 

[MaxCha]

I have no problem and HAVE supported a concept of civil unions not just for homosexual couples, but for ALL who need to form themselves into family units that would offer the protections and privileges that they need but who for whatever reason cannot or do not wish to enter into a traditional marriage defined as a man or woman.

I don't see gay people as their own group. I see them as people. I oppose special privileges for special interest groups of all types. I do support treating everybody as people with the same rights as everybody else.

And my point of view is not the least bit homophobic. And I still would most likely vote to defend the traditional definition of marriage and that would have nothing whatsoever to do with any opinion, good or bad, that I hold of people who happen to be gay.

Then we have no disagreement, you are not a bigoted person.

However, the law that was recently passed in North Carolina was not in any way similar to the point of view you just expressed. And that is of course, what triggered all this.

And I'm pos repping you for my incorrect assumption.

Aw thanks LWC, but you're allowed to have incorrect assumptions about me. Almost everybody does.

No, I know I am not in the least bit homophobic, judgmental about homosexuality, or bigoted. And I fully understand the reason behind the NC law, but I do wish they had worded it differently. You get such strong language in the face of what many pro-traditional-marriage folks consider a full fledged frontal assault. If both sides could just back up, take the wrong assumptions out of it, and really discuss the pros and cons of the whole thing, I think we could get to the place that everybody needs to be much more quickly.

But as long as we have those on the right making it a religious issue, and those on the left accusing anybody who is pro traditional mariage of being homophobic bigots, no constructive dialogue is likely to take place.

Perfect. Lets start with the cons. If two adults of the same sex who love each other get married, the negative impacts will be (insert answer here)?

Abstract answers, the same ones used against women and racial minorities in the past like "to preserve the foundation of our nation" or "keep sacred the moral values that define our society" aren't answers, as they don't indicate any negative impacts beyond the scope of one persons subjective beliefs.

Saying "Pedophilia will increase, as shown by this study" or "Straight people will suddenly believe marriage has no value and cease to marry or care for their children as is clearly shown by this study" would be a solid piece of evidence.

And people that describe their friendship with gays, but still wish to deny them equal rights (referring to marriage, ability to serve in the military, adopt children etc) remind me of those nice people in the 60's who knew many black people who were wonderful people, but still thought it best to preserve our nation's core values and not allow blacks to serve in the military, marry white people etc...

I know you personally are not mean-spirited or bigoted, but you fall on the extreme, more kindly end of a wide spectrum of people.