Who are the real bigots?

[Ravi]

The sad thing is there in lies QW's own bigotry based on his own interpretation of the word bigot.

He says that dismissing those who disagree with you on same sex marriage as a bigots makes you guilty of intolerance and then he cites the defintion of a bigot as including intolerance.

But then isn't he being dismissive of those who disagree with his position as he claims they are guilty of intolerance and therefore bigots?

Read enough of QW's posts and your brain cells get destroyed. But yes, that is basically what is going on here.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

The sad thing is there in lies QW's own bigotry based on his own interpretation of the word bigot.

He says that dismissing those who disagree with you on same sex marriage as a bigots makes you guilty of intolerance and then he cites the defintion of a bigot as including intolerance.

But then isn't he being dismissive of those who disagree with his position as he claims they are guilty of intolerance and therefore bigots?

Read enough of QW's posts and your brain cells get destroyed. But yes, that is basically what is going on here.

Truth destroys your brain cells? Are they made up of anti-truth?

 

[Ravi]

Clothes NAZI.

please put your underwear and pants back on!

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

Only a glutton for punishment would imagine you without your clothes.

And yes, faggot is a bigoted term, bigot.

 

[Ravi]

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.

Aside from the fact that she sees allowing gays to marry as giving them special privileges even though, as she says, they are simply people, what's not to agree with.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

The sad thing is there in lies QW's own bigotry based on his own interpretation of the word bigot.

He says that dismissing those who disagree with you on same sex marriage as a bigots makes you guilty of intolerance and then he cites the defintion of a bigot as including intolerance.

But then isn't he being dismissive of those who disagree with his position as he claims they are guilty of intolerance and therefore bigots?

It’s also a transparent attempt to stifle dissent with regard to those who will seek to have the North Carolina measure invalidated, by impugning their character and bringing into question their motives.

 

[Foxfyre]

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.

For me it is very simple. Gays already have the same rights as everybody else concerning marriage. They can get married so long as they follow the very same rules that everybody else follows.

Marriage laws exist for one purpose and one purpose only: to protect any children that result from the marriage. Every law involving marriage is toward that end whether or not any children actually result from the marriage.

The unintended but very real side effect of the traditional marriage is more stable neighhborhoods, less crime, better schools, a stronger economy, and the priceless benefits to the child who grows up with a loving mother and father in the home. This is beneficial to all kids whether they are gay or straight.

The traditional marriage has been under severe assault now for a half century and I want us to strengthen and appreciate it, not further weaken it or relegate it to less important status. You simply cannot change the definition of marriage without making it something different than it is.

So my reasons for wanting to protect traditional marriage have absolutely nothing to do with denying anybody rights and has absolutely nothing at all to do with sexual orientation. It has everything to do with preserving a time honored American tradition ithat is essential to give kids their very best circumstance in life and preserve a stronger America.

 

[koshergrl]

The sad thing is there in lies QW's own bigotry based on his own interpretation of the word bigot.

He says that dismissing those who disagree with you on same sex marriage as a bigots makes you guilty of intolerance and then he cites the defintion of a bigot as including intolerance.

But then isn't he being dismissive of those who disagree with his position as he claims they are guilty of intolerance and therefore bigots?

It’s also a transparent attempt to stifle dissent with regard to those who will seek to have the North Carolina measure invalidated, by impugning their character and bringing into question their motives.

You mean by calling them "racist" or "homophobe"?

Oh..wait...

 

[Dr Grump]

I came across this blog earlier today, and it got me to thinking about bigotry. I suggest that everyone who thinks that the bigots are the people that vote against same sex marriage are small minded read the whole thing.

After last night’s vote, I heard a disturbingly large number of my friends, national commentators, and others suggesting that this vote just proves that North Carolinians (or at least a giant percentage of us) are bigoted, homophobic, backwards people who are so filled with hate that we oppose equality for certain groups just because we can. And see, that’s just not the case. Yes, I voted against the amendment, as did many of my friends and hundreds of thousands of other NC residents. But I also know people who voted for it, and I know that they are not simply bigoted, homophobic, backwards people. It’s way more complicated than that.
Is there a lot of prejudice in North Carolina against LGBT people? Absolutely there is. But it’s not, as some have imagined, just a matter of “bigoted homophobes.” By and large, the prejudice that exists is a matter of a lack of understanding. Many of the folks I’ve talked to honestly believe that people choose to be gay and could choose not to be. They think that giving legal recognition to same-sex partnerships would increase the number of people choosing to be gay, and would therefore encourage more people to turn away from God’s plan for their lives. When they talk about homosexuality as a “perversion,” they’re not trying to be bigoted or mean; they’re being quite literal about it.
Those folks aren’t the only ones who supported the amendment, but in my experience, they make up the lion’s share of those who were most vocally in support. My Christian friends who understand what my life has been like as a gay Christian may not support same-sex marriage, but they tend to be way more thoughtful and careful about these questions, and they are the ones who felt most torn about this amendment and all the legal and moral issues it raised.
That’s why I posted to Facebook: “Yes, my state’s vote tonight saddens me. But it is not, as some have imagined, about intentional bigotry. It is about a lack of understanding, pure and simple—of who we are, what we want, and why it matters. Education is needed, and that is what I will keep dedicating myself to, every single day of my life.”

Crumbs from the Communion Table • A challenge to both sides of the Amendment One debate.


Next time somebody wants to dismiss everyone who disagrees with their views about same sex marriage as a bigot they should remember what the word actually means and take a step to end the intolerance.


Bigot [big-uht] (noun) a person who is utterly intolerant of any differing creed, belief,or opinion.

Yep, certainly sounds like those on this board who are against gay marriage are bigots...thanks for highlighting it...

 

[bigrebnc1775]

please put your underwear and pants back on!

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

Only a glutton for punishment would imagine you without your clothes.

And yes, faggot is a bigoted term, bigot.

Do I need to keep repeating myself I AM A BIGOT and men who imagine other men out of their clothes are faggots.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

The sad thing is there in lies QW's own bigotry based on his own interpretation of the word bigot.

He says that dismissing those who disagree with you on same sex marriage as a bigots makes you guilty of intolerance and then he cites the defintion of a bigot as including intolerance.

But then isn't he being dismissive of those who disagree with his position as he claims they are guilty of intolerance and therefore bigots?

It’s also a transparent attempt to stifle dissent with regard to those who will seek to have the North Carolina measure invalidated, by impugning their character and bringing into question their motives.

Do you even know how to follow a chain of logic to a conclusion? How is a blog written by a gay man who opposes the measure an attempt to stifle dissent with respect to people who oppose the measure?

 

[Quantum Windbag]

I came across this blog earlier today, and it got me to thinking about bigotry. I suggest that everyone who thinks that the bigots are the people that vote against same sex marriage are small minded read the whole thing.

After last night’s vote, I heard a disturbingly large number of my friends, national commentators, and others suggesting that this vote just proves that North Carolinians (or at least a giant percentage of us) are bigoted, homophobic, backwards people who are so filled with hate that we oppose equality for certain groups just because we can. And see, that’s just not the case. Yes, I voted against the amendment, as did many of my friends and hundreds of thousands of other NC residents. But I also know people who voted for it, and I know that they are not simply bigoted, homophobic, backwards people. It’s way more complicated than that.
Is there a lot of prejudice in North Carolina against LGBT people? Absolutely there is. But it’s not, as some have imagined, just a matter of “bigoted homophobes.” By and large, the prejudice that exists is a matter of a lack of understanding. Many of the folks I’ve talked to honestly believe that people choose to be gay and could choose not to be. They think that giving legal recognition to same-sex partnerships would increase the number of people choosing to be gay, and would therefore encourage more people to turn away from God’s plan for their lives. When they talk about homosexuality as a “perversion,” they’re not trying to be bigoted or mean; they’re being quite literal about it.
Those folks aren’t the only ones who supported the amendment, but in my experience, they make up the lion’s share of those who were most vocally in support. My Christian friends who understand what my life has been like as a gay Christian may not support same-sex marriage, but they tend to be way more thoughtful and careful about these questions, and they are the ones who felt most torn about this amendment and all the legal and moral issues it raised.
That’s why I posted to Facebook: “Yes, my state’s vote tonight saddens me. But it is not, as some have imagined, about intentional bigotry. It is about a lack of understanding, pure and simple—of who we are, what we want, and why it matters. Education is needed, and that is what I will keep dedicating myself to, every single day of my life.”

Crumbs from the Communion Table • A challenge to both sides of the Amendment One debate.


Next time somebody wants to dismiss everyone who disagrees with their views about same sex marriage as a bigot they should remember what the word actually means and take a step to end the intolerance.


Bigot [big-uht] (noun) a person who is utterly intolerant of any differing creed, belief,or opinion.

Yep, certainly sounds like those on this board who are against gay marriage are bigots...thanks for highlighting it...

Yep, that is exactly what I said. Thanks for proving your idiocy, and my point.

 

[JakeStarkey]

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

Only a glutton for punishment would imagine you without your clothes.

And yes, faggot is a bigoted term, bigot.

Do I need to keep repeating myself I AM A BIGOT and men who imagine other men out of their clothes are faggots.

Then if you are opposed to universal marriage, you are not a true conservative or libertarian.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

Only a glutton for punishment would imagine you without your clothes.

And yes, faggot is a bigoted term, bigot.

Do I need to keep repeating myself I AM A BIGOT and men who imagine other men out of their clothes are faggots.

Then if you are opposed to universal marriage, you are not a true conservative or libertarian.

You're an idiot The only true libertarian are Anarchist and anarchy leads to tyranny and no true conservative support gay marriage.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Do I need to keep repeating myself I AM A BIGOT and men who imagine other men out of their clothes are faggots.

Then if you are opposed to universal marriage, you are not a true conservative or libertarian.

You're an idiot The only true libertarian are Anarchist and anarchy leads to tyranny and no true conservative support gay marriage.

A religous conservative is a theocrat thus no true conservative.

You are wrong about libertarianism.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

Then if you are opposed to universal marriage, you are not a true conservative or libertarian.

You're an idiot The only true libertarian are Anarchist and anarchy leads to tyranny and no true conservative support gay marriage.

A religous conservative is a theocrat thus no true conservative.

You are wrong about libertarianism.

You're just wrong on everything idiot.

 

[JakeStarkey]

You don't get your own definitions, bigrebnc. Fact of life. Move along.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

You don't get your own definitions, bigrebnc. Fact of life. Move along.

You don't get to use your own definitions either jake that's is a fact of life go sit in the corner

 

[JakeStarkey]

Do you really know what a libertarian philosophy is, bigrenbc? Didn't think so.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

Do you really know what a libertarian philosophy is, bigrenbc? Didn't think so.

Dumb ass you said true libertarian you don't get to define what is and what is not.
I see what you are you are an authoritarian. You think you have the authority to tell someone what they can and cannot wear.

 

[JakeStarkey]

I see you have no idea what you are talking about. At least you are consistent about that.

No, anarchism and libertarianism are no more equivalent than are the Democrats and socialism.