Who are the real bigots?

[bigrebnc1775]

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.

The authoritarian speaks,

 

[JakeStarkey]

And the bigot listens!

 

[bigrebnc1775]

And the bigot listens!

I'm a bigot that is true but I place a boot in the ass of authoritarian like you.

 

[JakeStarkey]

The bigot is a day dreamer too!

 

[Immanuel]

Who cares what a bigot says about anything?

According to the OP being dismissive of those who disagree with you makes you the bigot.

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.

Too bad you weren't able to comprehend what he said.

Here let me point out what you obviously did not understand. He said, that being a bigot is being utterly intolerant of differing creeds, beliefs or opinions. He said being a bigot was NOT simply disagreeing with someone else.

You see, before you act as stupidly as you did, you should actually read and comprehend the post you are commenting on.

Note once again for the utterly dense: QW clearly and correctly stated that simply disagreeing with someone is not bigotry. Bigotry is the intolerant and hateful treatment of another class of people.

That is why you are a bigot, drsmith. NOT because you disagree with someone. Everyone disagrees with someone else, but rather because your posts are 100% hateful and intolerant of conservatives.

Your friend,

Immie

 

[bigrebnc1775]

The bigot is a day dreamer too!

The authoritarian going to go to the corner and cry because he can't get his way.

 

[JakeStarkey]

You are delusional in your day dreams.

 

[Immanuel]

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.

I would agree with almost all of this.

I do not agree with your last "BLANKET" statement. Surely many who voted for this did so as bigots, but you cannot be certain that all who voted against "gay marriage" in this case did so as bigots. Perhaps, they have legitimate religious beliefs about the term marriage and although they are not intolerant of or hateful to homosexual couples, they believe that marriage is sacred. Of course, IMHO they are not paying attention to things like divorce rates, but still. One need not hate people to vote against something that other people support.

From the little I know of the NC law, I would not have supported it. Although, I do believe the rite of marriage is sacred, I believe it is a religious rite and because of the Separation of Church and State, it should remain as such. I fully support civil unions for all couples not just homosexuals. Marriage should return to being a rite of the church and only a rite of the church. Couples who wish to be married (a religious blessing upon their union) should do so in their own church... and yes, that too applies to homosexuals.

Immie

 

[bigrebnc1775]

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.

I would agree with almost all of this.

I do not agree with your last "BLANKET" statement. Surely many who voted for this did so as bigots, but you cannot be certain that all who voted against "gay marriage" in this case did so as bigots. Perhaps, they have legitimate religious beliefs about the term marriage and although they are not intolerant of or hateful to homosexual couples, they believe that marriage is sacred. Of course, IMHO they are not paying attention to things like divorce rates, but still. One need not hate people to vote against something that other people support.

From the little I know of the NC law, I would not have supported it. Although, I do believe the rite of marriage is sacred, I believe it is a religious rite and because of the Separation of Church and State, it should remain as such. I fully support civil unions for all couples not just homosexuals. Marriage should return to being a rite of the church and only a rite of the church. Couple who wish to be married (a religious blessing upon their union) should do so in their own church... and yes, that too applies to homosexuals.

Immie

I'm a bigot for not supporting the abnormal and illegal act of homosexuality
I'm also a bigot for not supporting the right for family members to marry.

 

[JakeStarkey]

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.

I would agree with almost all of this.

I do not agree with your last "BLANKET" statement. Surely many who voted for this did so as bigots, but you cannot be certain that all who voted against "gay marriage" in this case did so as bigots. Perhaps, they have legitimate religious beliefs about the term marriage and although they are not intolerant of or hateful to homosexual couples, they believe that marriage is sacred. Of course, IMHO they are not paying attention to things like divorce rates, but still. One need not hate people to vote against something that other people support.

From the little I know of the NC law, I would not have supported it. Although, I do believe the rite of marriage is sacred, I believe it is a religious rite and because of the Separation of Church and State, it should remain as such. I fully support civil unions for all couples not just homosexuals. Marriage should return to being a rite of the church and only a rite of the church. Couple who wish to be married (a religious blessing upon their union) should do so in their own church... and yes, that too applies to homosexuals.

Immie

I'm a bigot for not supporting the abnormal and illegal act of homosexuality. I'm also a bigot for not supporting the right for family members to marry.

Homosexuality is part of nature, thus natural, and it is not illegal.

Incest is illegal. We have some on the board for lowering consent ages and permitting brothers/sisters to marry.

Strange thinking.

 

[drsmith1072]

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.

Typical. You asked for an answer and were given one and then discard it wiuthout even addressing it. How is what I said a strawman? I cited your own words so please explain if you can.

Why are you running away from your own words and are you now going to renege and avoid answering my questions?

Thought so. Thanks for showing how little integrity you have.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

I would agree with almost all of this.

I do not agree with your last "BLANKET" statement. Surely many who voted for this did so as bigots, but you cannot be certain that all who voted against "gay marriage" in this case did so as bigots. Perhaps, they have legitimate religious beliefs about the term marriage and although they are not intolerant of or hateful to homosexual couples, they believe that marriage is sacred. Of course, IMHO they are not paying attention to things like divorce rates, but still. One need not hate people to vote against something that other people support.

From the little I know of the NC law, I would not have supported it. Although, I do believe the rite of marriage is sacred, I believe it is a religious rite and because of the Separation of Church and State, it should remain as such. I fully support civil unions for all couples not just homosexuals. Marriage should return to being a rite of the church and only a rite of the church. Couple who wish to be married (a religious blessing upon their union) should do so in their own church... and yes, that too applies to homosexuals.

Immie

I'm a bigot for not supporting the abnormal and illegal act of homosexuality. I'm also a bigot for not supporting the right for family members to marry.

Homosexuality is part of nature, thus natural, and it is not illegal.

Incest is illegal. We have some on the board for lowering consent ages and permitting brothers/sisters to marry.

Strange thinking.

Not human nature If it was part of human nature humans would be asexual.

Why is incest illegal jake?

 

[drsmith1072]

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?

More insults in lieu of a real counter ususally means that you have nothing valid to offer.

Instead of running and hiding behind lame and baseless personal attacks why not respond to the content?

Why can't you answer these simple questions about your own words?

 

[Immanuel]

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.

I would agree with almost all of this.

I do not agree with your last "BLANKET" statement. Surely many who voted for this did so as bigots, but you cannot be certain that all who voted against "gay marriage" in this case did so as bigots. Perhaps, they have legitimate religious beliefs about the term marriage and although they are not intolerant of or hateful to homosexual couples, they believe that marriage is sacred. Of course, IMHO they are not paying attention to things like divorce rates, but still. One need not hate people to vote against something that other people support.

From the little I know of the NC law, I would not have supported it. Although, I do believe the rite of marriage is sacred, I believe it is a religious rite and because of the Separation of Church and State, it should remain as such. I fully support civil unions for all couples not just homosexuals. Marriage should return to being a rite of the church and only a rite of the church. Couple who wish to be married (a religious blessing upon their union) should do so in their own church... and yes, that too applies to homosexuals.

Immie

I'm a bigot for not supporting the abnormal and illegal act of homosexuality
I'm also a bigot for not supporting the right for family members to marry.

Those were written as statements. That tells me that you are admitting to being a bigot. If you say you are, I will accept your word or it. I didn't call you a bigot. I don't know that you voted for the law or if you did, why you did so.

If those were intended as questions, I didn't say you were a bigot. What were your reasons for voting for the law, if you did?

Immie

 

[drsmith1072]

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 can't call them bigots because doing so makes you guilty of intolerance and a bigot. LOL

 

[JakeStarkey]

Homosexuality is part of human nature, has been since the beginning of time. It exists in the lower species. Tell me why incesit is illegal, bigrebnc, and why you support it. We are all interested, I am sure.

 

[Immanuel]

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 can't call them bigots because doing so makes you a bigot. LOL

More lies from you.

What makes you a bigot is your past performance.

If you want to call me a bigot, you have to point out that 100% of my posts are hateful to liberals or homosexuals or people of color or whatever class of people you want to claim I am bigotted against. Hell, I'll be nice to you and even give you 80% of my posts... good luck.

Your friend,

Immie

 

[bigrebnc1775]

I would agree with almost all of this.

I do not agree with your last "BLANKET" statement. Surely many who voted for this did so as bigots, but you cannot be certain that all who voted against "gay marriage" in this case did so as bigots. Perhaps, they have legitimate religious beliefs about the term marriage and although they are not intolerant of or hateful to homosexual couples, they believe that marriage is sacred. Of course, IMHO they are not paying attention to things like divorce rates, but still. One need not hate people to vote against something that other people support.

From the little I know of the NC law, I would not have supported it. Although, I do believe the rite of marriage is sacred, I believe it is a religious rite and because of the Separation of Church and State, it should remain as such. I fully support civil unions for all couples not just homosexuals. Marriage should return to being a rite of the church and only a rite of the church. Couple who wish to be married (a religious blessing upon their union) should do so in their own church... and yes, that too applies to homosexuals.

Immie

I'm a bigot for not supporting the abnormal and illegal act of homosexuality
I'm also a bigot for not supporting the right for family members to marry.

Those were written as statements. That tells me that you are admitting to being a bigot. If you say you are, I will accept your word or it. I didn't call you a bigot. I don't know that you voted for the law or if you did, why you did so.

If those were intended as questions, I didn't say you were a bigot. What were your reasons for voting for the law, if you did?

Immie

I make no bones about it I am a bigot and anyone who says they aren't a bigot is lying to themselves. What I said was a statement.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

Homosexuality is part of human nature, has been since the beginning of time. It exists in the lower species. Tell me why incesit is illegal, bigrebnc, and why you support it. We are all interested, I am sure.

If homosexuality was here from the beginning of time why aren't humans Asexual? Why Adam and Eve and not Adam and Steve

 

[JakeStarkey]

Being opinionated, bigrebnc, is not necesarrily being bigoted. Know the difference.

Your premise about natural homosexuality is false. Prove it if you can. You can't.