Who are the real bigots?

[Joshuatree]

At age 22, I became an editor of the first magazine aimed at a young, gay male audience. It bordered on pornography in its photographic content, but I figured I could use it as a platform to bigger and better things.

Sure enough, Young Gay America came around. It was meant to fill the void that the other magazine I’d worked for had created – namely, anything not-so-pornographic, aimed at the population of young, gay Americans. Young Gay America took off.

Young Gay America launched YGA Magazine in 2004, to pretend to provide a “virtuous counterpart” to the other newsstand media aimed at gay youth. I say “pretend” because the truth was, YGA was as damaging as anything else out there, just not overtly pornographic, so it was more “respected.”

It took me almost 16 years to discover that homosexuality itself is not exactly “virtuous.” It was difficult for me to clarify my feelings on the issue, given that my life was so caught up in it.

Homosexuality, delivered to young minds, is by its very nature pornographic. It destroys impressionable minds and confuses their developing sexuality; I did not realize this, however, until I was 30 years old.

(...)

In my experience, “coming out” from under the influence of the homosexual mindset was the most liberating, beautiful and astonishing thing I’ve ever experienced in my entire life.

- Michael Glatze

 

[Ravi]

Bigotry comes in all shapes and sizes. It comes from all political and sociological aspects.

Look in the mirror. You will probably see a bigot, because quite frankly, bigotry is human nature. Some can and do control it within them, but we all have our prejudices.

When I was reading this post by drsmith:



I could not but help to think that the second definition he presented fits him to a "T". There are others on the board who are "obstinately or intolerantly devoted to his or her own opinions and prejudices", but he most definitely fits the definition IMHO.

drsmith, when was the last time your position "evolved"? Have you ever met a conservative you liked? Do you think there is any possibility that you might some day in your life? Are you going to dismiss everyone who disagrees with your views as you seem to have done in the past? I'm willing to admit that I may be wrong about you. Are you willing to "evolve"?

Before you ask, I can tell you without any hesitation that my views have "evolved" in many areas. Abortion... I used to think that everyone who was pro-choice were thrilled to death at the thought of 4,000 babies dying every day. Now, I realize, the vast majority of them are just as sickened by that idea as I am, but don't want government to interfere in our lives. Gay Marriage... used to believe that marriage was a union between one man and one woman (still do that) and that the homosexuals could go screw themselves if they thought they were going to destroy the sanctity of marriage. Now, I realize that homosexuals are discriminated in many ways, that they are entitled to the same rights and privileges as citizens of the United States as I am and that the government has no right being involved in the rites of the church. Therefore, the government needs to establish civil union laws and all "marriages" need to be established under civil union contracts. Churches should be free to marry whomever they want, but a "marriage" should not be given any special priviliges by the state. Those are two areas. There are others, but I am still not willing to claim that I am not a bigot. I have my prejudices just like everyone else.

So, how, many of you are willing to be open minded and change your long held beliefs or are you willing to look yourself in the mirror and admit that you are a bigot?

Immie

You make some good points. Not sure if DrS should be the target of your wrath, but then again, he hasn't posted enough that I've read to decide.

I actually know two people that I consider conservatives that changed their minds on the gay rights issue from discussions on messagesboards. It is very gratifying to see someone have an epiphany.

And in case you don't think I've ever changed my mind, I did. About the 2nd amendment. And I even learned to not blame Dubya for all the woes in the world.

the sad thing is that instead of addressing the actual content of my post and how I pointed out some of the flaws/bigotry within the OP immie took the opportunity to attack me based on his own bias against the left as he tries to define me based on some misguided belief of what he believes is representative of a liberal.

Usually Immie is a pretty balanced person. Currently, and sadly, he's caught a case of ODS. Hopefully it isn't terminal.

 

[Ravi]

People are people, some have strong opinions. Just as I feel about birth control and abortions, sexual orientation is different from person to person.

I think the government should stay out of everyone's bedrooms, Gay or Straight.

They have no business telling anyone what's acceptable and what's not. Everyone is entitled to their opinion, information creates a different mind set. Cramming something down someone's throat isn't going to change their opinion, providing them with factual information instead of strong opinions gives them the information they can use. They can also choose not to use it, it should be their choice, not the government's.

The most ironic thing about the gay marriage issue is that social conservatives, by their non-stop demonization of gays, helped gay people come out of the closet to defend themselves.

Good post, btw.

 

[Mr. Shaman]

Who are the real bigots?

The Hiller Armament Company

​

 

[drsmith1072]

I asked you perfectly honest questions and gave you a perfectly easy way to state that you are not the bigot you come across as. I was kind of hoping you would take the opportunity. But, you replied with bullshit bigotry. I should have known you would.

You didn't even read my reply.

It is obvious who is the bigot and that would be you. And quite frankly, I would prefer to be a hack than a discriminating bigot.

Sianora, bigot.

Immie

you did no such thing but then you have alredy been shown to be dishonest so making false claims now really isn't that much of a stretch for you is it?

Oh and i read your "reply" however, since your "replies" never really addressed the actual content of my post nor answered the questions that I asked I decided to treat you with the same avoidance that you are treating me with.

In the previous exchange I spent a lot of time responded to every aspect of your post and you couldn't do the same so there is no point in wasting my time responding to it all again when you refuse to offer me the same courtesy.

Run along little hack. LOL Thanks again for nothing.

Didn't address the content of your posts?

You are so dishonest in this post.

Nope, but then you already know that don't you?

I responded to everyone of your deflections and responses.

Nope, but then you already know that don't you? Saying "good answer" or thannking me for an answer and then running on with your rant that I am bigotted beucase you kn ow mke based on the few posts that i have posted over the years is discarding my responses and failing to actually address them.

It is quite noticeable that you are refusing to answer the question as to whether or not you have ever made a polite response to a conservative. Your avoidance of the question which would be as simple as a yes or no answer is noteworthy.

Nope done so in the other thread but after you start discarding my reponses I decided there was no point in wasting my time with the rest of your drivel when you will only do the same to those response that you can't spin or run counter to your predisposed opinions.

You are an idiot. My initial post to you and every post after word did in fact address the content of your posts.

Says the hack. who puts words in my mouth and assumes to know what i am really thiniking as he ignores what I actually said.

Your initial post defined bigotry with two similar definitions.

I very clearly addressed your definitions and then preceeded to further the discussion.

If you mean that you insulted me based on your bias and assumptions then yeah sure you addressed everything. LOL

The only questions you have asked me in this discussion are:

Funny but you don't even know me so how can you make such a judgement without it being based on your own bias and intolerance of those who dare disagree with you?

I answered that. I said I do know you by your posts.

Here is your "answer"

You are wrong though, I do know you. I know you from your posts and you are in line with the other leftwing wackos on here who have never made a single post where they said a decent thing about a conservative.

You claim that you do know me based on my posts and claim that I never made a single post taht said a decent thing about a conservative but that is false. My comments about jack kingston alone show that ot be the case. The sad thing is that you made that accusation based on your own bias and assumptions and were WRONG. Furthermore, can one actually claim knowledge of the person behind the screenname based solely on the content of thei posts? NO.

HUH?

Sorry, I don't have an answer to that. In English, what were you trying to ask me there?

context please. What was the "huh?" in response to? How is that not english?

Those are the only two questions you have asked me in this thread. One was asked and answered, the other wasn't even asked in English. I can't reply to it.

so "huh?" in response to one of your posts is not english? WOW!

You are obviously a bigot.

says the hack who decided I was a bigot merely because I disagree with his predisposed opinions and apparently some slight he perceived in the past that I can't even remember.

When you call QW a bigot you are pointing out your hypocrisy.

Be well, bigot.

Immie

Really? How? How is my pointing out his bigotry considered hypocrisy? Funny how you failed to show anything to suppoort such an accusation but then when you are filled with hatred and obsession as you obviously are there is no need for a reason is there?

 

[Ravi]

Bottom line:

If the people that voted to ban gay marriage weren't bigots, they wouldn't have voted to ban gay marriage.

No real conservative or liberal would ever be for denying someone a right simply because of their sexual orientation.

 

[Mr. Shaman]

Who are the real bigots?

North Carolina; 1929 - 1974​

​

 

[koshergrl]

Bottom line:

If the people that voted to ban gay marriage weren't bigots, they wouldn't have voted to ban gay marriage.

No real conservative or liberal would ever be for denying someone a right simply because of their sexual orientation.

They haven't been denied anything; they've refused to participate. If they choose to marry a person of the opposite sex, they will be able to be married just like anyone else who wants to marry a person of the opposite sex, regardless of sexual orientation.

They've just chosen not to participate in the construct. If they choose to participate, they can.

 

[thereisnospoon]

I gather dems no more march in lock step than pubs. Unless it is refusing to govern: that McConnell and Boehner got bent over by the TP caucuses and taught a lesson. What will be fun will be the assignments that don't go to the rump remainder of the TP still in Congress in January, which will be at least 50% less than now.

You "gather"?

 

[Quantum Windbag]

I have no qualms with what he said. My argument is concerned with YOUR statements and how your framed your OP. Why is that so hard for your to understand?



I explained it quite clearly. Maybe you should focus on your own lack of understanding of the english language and less time worrying about mine?




that is NOT what you said in the excerpt that I was commenting on so what are you playing at now?



you and your seven personalities don't count as 8. Instead of claimng that you can do why not just do it?




I never said anything of the kind but then you know that already don't you? So why LIE about my position like that?



WHy does your dishonest attempt to redefine my arguments to suit your needs offend me?? Hmm? i can think of a frew reasons.




a halfassed admission you would be "QUITE WILLING" to admit your bigotry in an attempt to give validity to your argument means very little. However, thanks anyway.

Ok we will just stop right here where you omitted part of the previous post in an attempt to avoid answering a question you knew that you could not answer even though you repeated the false allegation here in this one. here is the omission on your part




and i asked

I am?? Really? Where?

So if you are going to be that blatantly dishoenst then what is the point of debating?

My "famed" OP consisted of two sentences. I went to the trouble of repeating them and specifically asking what it was you found offensive about them, you couldn't actually find an answer, so I guess you chose to ignore the question.

Nope I answered it and you discarded my answer. Not my problem. Go find it if you want i am through wasting my time reposting things for you.



Did I say that exactly?? Really? Care to show me when and where I said that? Not that you will based on how you have failed to back up your other attempts to redefine my posiions by putting words into my mouth.



Which portion was that? specifics please. Do you really not remember what you said?

BTW how would the whole state of NC is bigoted based on how only 61% voted in favor of the amendment?

Still waiting on that list of rightwing and left bigots in this thread.

Still on you to show when and where I stated that I refuse to admit that it's possible to vote against something without being a bigot.

I can also point to people on the left who are being bigots, one of them is you because you refuse to admit that it is actually possible to vote against something you like unless the person doing it is a bigot

Still waiting on you to show where i insisted the following.

You are the one that is trying to insist that the only definition of a bigot that applies is one that excludes you

However, my guess is that you avoided them to begin with there is no point in waiting on integrity that will never come from you.

If you actually addressed my two sentences in the OP and what it was I said that was bigoted feel free to go back and show me where. Until you do you are an idiotic bigot.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Bottom line:

If the people that voted to ban gay marriage weren't bigots, they wouldn't have voted to ban gay marriage.

No real conservative or liberal would ever be for denying someone a right simply because of their sexual orientation.

Thank you for being honest and making the only point that this thread is trying to make.

 

[bobcollum]

Bottom line:

If the people that voted to ban gay marriage weren't bigots, they wouldn't have voted to ban gay marriage.

No real conservative or liberal would ever be for denying someone a right simply because of their sexual orientation.

Thank you for being honest and making the only point that this thread is trying to make.

There he goes again...it's our fault for not understanding that they don't mean to be bigots, even if the end result mimics a bigoted judgment.

I guess...

 

[Immanuel]

you did no such thing but then you have alredy been shown to be dishonest so making false claims now really isn't that much of a stretch for you is it?

Oh and i read your "reply" however, since your "replies" never really addressed the actual content of my post nor answered the questions that I asked I decided to treat you with the same avoidance that you are treating me with.

In the previous exchange I spent a lot of time responded to every aspect of your post and you couldn't do the same so there is no point in wasting my time responding to it all again when you refuse to offer me the same courtesy.

Run along little hack. LOL Thanks again for nothing.

Didn't address the content of your posts?

You are so dishonest in this post.

Nope, but then you already know that don't you?



Nope, but then you already know that don't you? Saying "good answer" or thannking me for an answer and then running on with your rant that I am bigotted beucase you kn ow mke based on the few posts that i have posted over the years is discarding my responses and failing to actually address them.



Nope done so in the other thread but after you start discarding my reponses I decided there was no point in wasting my time with the rest of your drivel when you will only do the same to those response that you can't spin or run counter to your predisposed opinions.



Says the hack. who puts words in my mouth and assumes to know what i am really thiniking as he ignores what I actually said.




If you mean that you insulted me based on your bias and assumptions then yeah sure you addressed everything. LOL



Here is your "answer"



You claim that you do know me based on my posts and claim that I never made a single post taht said a decent thing about a conservative but that is false. My comments about jack kingston alone show that ot be the case. The sad thing is that you made that accusation based on your own bias and assumptions and were WRONG. Furthermore, can one actually claim knowledge of the person behind the screenname based solely on the content of thei posts? NO.



context please. What was the "huh?" in response to? How is that not english?



so "huh?" in response to one of your posts is not english? WOW!

You are obviously a bigot.

says the hack who decided I was a bigot merely because I disagree with his predisposed opinions and apparently some slight he perceived in the past that I can't even remember.

When you call QW a bigot you are pointing out your hypocrisy.

Be well, bigot.

Immie

Really? How? How is my pointing out his bigotry considered hypocrisy? Funny how you faield to show anything to suppoort such an accusation but then when you are filled with hatred and obsession as you obviously are there is no need for a reason is there?

My god, you are a middle schooler.

Nope, but then you already know that don't you? Saying "good answer" or thannking me for an answer and then running on with your rant that I am bigotted beucase you kn ow mke based on the few posts that i have posted over the years is discarding my responses and failing to actually address them.

A few posts? I am sure you can count to three. That is what a few is.

You have over 5930 posts of nothing but hate. The vast majority of them prove that you are a bigot, and, I'm not exactly certain I would call any of your post about Mr. Kingston as being polite to conservatives.

Here are some of the older ones. And the comment about willow just furthers proof that you can't be polite to anyone you don't agree with.

http://www.usmessageboard.com/the-f...bagger-to-tea-party-folks-36.html#post2459467

http://www.usmessageboard.com/the-f...bagger-to-tea-party-folks-44.html#post2466316

http://www.usmessageboard.com/polit...-h-r-5741-is-now-in-debate-2.html#post2558393

Holding up three posts out of nearly 6000 doesn't make you a pillar of impartiality, especially when all three of them were, in fact, rude to conservatives, The Rabbi and Willow, and the third was a slam on Glenn Beck. You must be a very proud bigot.

Nope done so in the other thread but after you start discarding my reponses I decided there was no point in wasting my time with the rest of your drivel when you will only do the same to those response that you can't spin or run counter to your predisposed opinions.

More lies on your part. I have responded to all of your posts and not discarded a one of your responses.

Says the hack. who puts words in my mouth and assumes to know what i am really thiniking as he ignores what I actually said.

More lies from the bigot.

If you mean that you insulted me based on your bias and assumptions then yeah sure you addressed everything. LOL

My own biases? Can you show anything that shows my assumptions to be incorrect? Got anything besides your hate-filled, "I am a swell guy because I once voted for Jack Kingston" posts all three of which were actually proof of what I said in the first post.

You claim that you do know me based on my posts and claim that I never made a single post taht said a decent thing about a conservative but that is false. My comments about jack kingston alone show that ot be the case.

Liar, your three posts, the only three posts you made about Kingston before today, were, in fact, proof that you are a bigot with half-assed attempts at justifying your damned bigotry by throwing out a name of a person who nobody even knows here.

Face it, you are a damned bigot and your calling me a hack is not going to change that.

The sad thing is that you made that accusation based on your own bias and assumptions and were WRONG.

Really? Still going with the whhhaaaaa whhhhaaaaaa I'm not a bigot defense?

It isn't working.

Furthermore, can one actually claim knowledge of the person behind the screenname based solely on the content of thei posts? NO.

Seeing as how all of my points about knowing you have very clearly been in reference to the man (are you even a man?) online, that doesn't make any sense. Clearly online you are a bigot. You have laid out your defense... "I'm not a bigot because a long long time ago, I voted for a Republican named Jack Kingston" and it simply doesn't hold water.

context please. What was the "huh?" in response to? How is that not english?

Follow the links like I had to do. It was in your response to my efforts to show how I had evolved over the time I have been posting. One of the very first posts you made and either in regards to my statement about evolving in my stance on abortion or on gay marriage.

so "huh?" in response to one of your posts is not english? WOW!

Huh, doesn't leave any room for an answer that is for sure. It's an interjection used as an exclamation of surprise. Not a question. How is anyone supposed to answer that? At the best it is a moron speaking out his incomprehension.

says the hack who decided I was a bigot merely because I disagree with his predisposed opinions and apparently some slight he perceived in the past that I can't even remember.

Is it really so difficult to understand that one, I would much rather be a hack than a bigot. At least hacks have a moral backbones. Bigotry is based upon the immorality of discrimination. Call me a hack all you want. The proof is in the pudding that I treat left and right quite fairly. Conversely the proof is in the pudding that you do not.

Really? How? How is my pointing out his bigotry considered hypocrisy? Funny how you failed to show anything to suppoort such an accusation but then when you are filled with hatred and obsession as you obviously are there is no need for a reason is there?

Really? Who's filled with hatred and obsession? You are the one that is obsessed with hatred. I'm sitting here laughing my ass off at your extremely feeble attempts at proving that you are not a damned bigot and failing at doing so.

This has been a classic conversation, and I can't believe that you have allowed me to get away with proving beyond the shadow of a doubt that you are in fact a bigot.

This is hilarious!

Thank you very much for the laughs my friend,

Immie

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Bottom line:

If the people that voted to ban gay marriage weren't bigots, they wouldn't have voted to ban gay marriage.

No real conservative or liberal would ever be for denying someone a right simply because of their sexual orientation.

Thank you for being honest and making the only point that this thread is trying to make.

There he goes again...it's our fault for not understanding that they don't mean to be bigots, even if the end result mimics a bigoted judgment.

I guess...

Did I say that?

Ravi clearly stated that the only reason to vote against same sex marriage is bigotry. Do you see that as anything other than bigotry? If you do, explain how in a way that actually makes sense. I posted a link to an entire blog post written by a gay man about why it is wrong to dismiss their actions as bigotry, yet she still insists that it is, despite the evidence to the contrary. Yet, for some reason, I am the one that is not making sense.

You figure it out.

 

[ABikerSailor]

Bottom line:

If the people that voted to ban gay marriage weren't bigots, they wouldn't have voted to ban gay marriage.

No real conservative or liberal would ever be for denying someone a right simply because of their sexual orientation.

They haven't been denied anything; they've refused to participate. If they choose to marry a person of the opposite sex, they will be able to be married just like anyone else who wants to marry a person of the opposite sex, regardless of sexual orientation.

They've just chosen not to participate in the construct. If they choose to participate, they can.

So, in other words, it's do as we do and you're okay, but do different and you'll be persecuted?

Well, I'm not surprised, it's kinda what I'd expect out of Kaiser Twat.

 

[JakeStarkey]

I posted a link to an entire blog post written by a gay man about why it is wrong to dismiss their actions as bigotry, . . .

Yet you don't accept the conclusions of several dozen lesbians that they believed male abuse facilitated their sexuality?

Yes, you ae a wind bag.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

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.

Everybody is a bigot anyone who says they aren't is a liar, or a person who can't think for themselves and is what I call a tumbleweed that move about as the political winds blow.

 

[JakeStarkey]

bigrebnc demonstrates an usual moment of self clarity.

I applaud him.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

bigrebnc demonstrates an usual moment of self clarity.

I applaud him.

I said everybody unless you are a tumbleweed are you a tumbleweed jake?

 

[candycorn]

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.

The root of most bigotry is ignorance.