California to investigate Mormon aid to Prop 8

[OrByte]

Originally posted by: Atreus21
I dropped off the radar because I work full time.

My revulsion to gay activity may be telling of my motivation, but it doesn't debunk my arguments. And anyway, again, I didn't get into this thread to rail against gay marriage. I'm tired of the left immediately labelling any opposition as bigoted. You can use the word to villify anyone defending a principle, belief, or conviction. But when the word is leveled at you, your own immovability seems excusable. You guys act as if holding to any principle is bigoted. But that means you too are adhering to principle.

why am I a bigot? Because I think gays should be married? guess what..so does the SC of California. Are they bigots too? You are missapplying your definition of bigot.

Eskimospy said it best:

I'm not aware of any people making the argument that no opinion is better than any other either. Just because liberals preach tolerance doesn't mean that they need to be tolerant of everything, particularly toxic bigotry such as this.


You are free to your belief/opinion that you are "right" At the end of the day we ALL think we are right. But your position on THIS subject matter is what is inherently bigoted and predjudiced. Because of what it IS. Your position represents the creation of 2nd Class citizenry. According to you, Gays do not pass the muster...they are Gods rejects. THAT is bigoted...the fact that you claim that you are only defending a principle is secondary to the fact that your principle is prejudiced and bigoted.

and yes your arguments have constantly/consistantly been debunked. Every single one of them. Ever since this became an issue there hasn't been one simple legalistic or scientific argument to limit marriage and exclude gays.

not one. zilch. and you can't come up with one. Your reasons are based solely on what you believe is "right" irregardless of the impact of others and/or their beliefs.

Just for arguments sake lets say I agree with you. I believe you are right. I hate those damn dirty gays. They are worthless. And they are just whiny because polygamists dont have marriage rights too. But I do not choose to place my feelings/beliefs in a position of power to limit their individuality. Which is exactly what Prop 8 voters did. Prop 8 created a 2nd class citizenry. period. That is bigotry. That is predjudice. That is Xenophobic. Take your pick bud.

Does that not compute?

 

[OrByte]

Originally posted by: Atreus21
These contradictions have been common of the modern left. What I want is to cease the dishonesty. You want what you want because you think it's right, good, and true. Just like the rest of us. But at least the rest of us admit it.

This part is just plain bullshit I'm sorry man.

You are just as guilty of what you claim the "left" does.

Maybe you just don't see it.

 

[Harvey]

Originally posted by: piasabird

If you examine the teachings of the Bible Marriage is the first concept introduced. It is the core of all Christian Churches. You can either be for the Family or against it. If you find in favor of gay marriage that is against the Family. So are you for the Family or against it.

Idiocy like that is why your self righteous, self-justifiying dumbass bible and a dollar aren't worth the price of one item at a 99 Cent Store. :roll:

 

[Cerpin Taxt]

Originally posted by: Atreus21

Originally posted by: Cerpin Taxt

Originally posted by: Atreus21
True, but at the most basic levels, there is only truth, and truth is right.

False, false, false, false, FALSE. It is true that people are wrongfully executed for crimes that they did not commit. That doesn't make it "right." WTF are you thinking?

True =/= Right =/= Legal

Truth is a word in human language. It means whatever we decide we want it to mean. Truth is defined, and as a consequence it can be redefined.

In other words, statements are true only inasmuch as their syntax and definitions are consistent with the definitions we've agreed upon beforehand. Truth is literally created when words are defined. All the theorems of logic are tautologies.

You're still arguing objectively, though. You can start each of your sentences with, "This is the truth:" Even if you're saying all truth is subjective, you're still making an objective statement when you use the word "is."

Good grief, read a book, man. I'm not making an objective statement when I say that vanilla is delicious. What the fuck are you smoking?

You're saying the only objective truth is that there is no objective truth, and that's a contradiction.

No, I'm not. Christ almighty, you're like a strawman factory, and your arguments read like you're taking lessons from Matt Slick.

 

[fskimospy]

Originally posted by: Atreus21

Originally posted by: eskimospy

Originally posted by: Atreus21

I've done it before eskimo, and it was addressed to you. I'm not doing it here because if I do, people will focus on that, and not what I'm trying to illustrate. I didn't post here to voice my opposition to gay marriage. I'm posting to illustrate that liberals, who apparently believe no opinion is objectively better or worse than any other, are dishonest by not adhering to that principle when they call anyone who doesn't think as they do bigots.

You know, you're right. I remember now. I also remember that what you wrote didn't pass muster unfortunately. (I don't seem to be able to find it with the search function)

I'm not aware of any people making the argument that no opinion is better than any other either. Just because liberals preach tolerance doesn't mean that they need to be tolerant of everything, particularly toxic bigotry such as this.

Well c'mon. The day I convince you of the validity of any of my positions is the day I have a heart attack.

I hold by that argument. There's no right to social sanction.

Nobody has ever claimed a right to social sanction, they have claimed a right to equal protection, one that very clearly exists. People seem to be missing the fact that they are not legally allowed to prohibit some of the things that they think are wrong, because that's the price they pay for living in America and not having the things they value prohibited by others.

Ah well, everyone in this is just talking past one another. The anti gay bigots (and they are bigots sadly enough) do not appear to be capable of recognizing their bigotry. This makes their position against gay marriage quite reasonable in their eyes I'm sure. It reminds me of my grandparents, who were racist through and through. There wasn't anything we could do to change their minds, life had just passed them by and they never noticed. Such is the same fate for the anti gay bigots we have here.

 

[Eeezee]

Originally posted by: Atreus21
words and general idiocy

Really? Others are bigoted by calling you a bigot? This is the worst argument anyone on this board has ever made. Rather than invalidate the claim that you're a bigot, you sink to the same level of name-calling and do it in the most asinine way possible, thus sinking yourself even lower.

Yeah, technically being intolerant of bigotry is bigotry, but let's really step back and examine the differences here.

1) Bigotry is voting to strip rights from a group of people because you can't tolerate them.

2) Bigotry is calling that action bigotry

Do you not see the difference? One is a definite usage of the term, the other is a meaningless technicality (and is also bigotry, so you've made another bigoted statement by making that claim).

If you really want to, you can create an infinite loop of calling each other bigots. By calling him a bigot for calling you a bigot, you're being an even bigger bigot! Now do you understand how stupid that sounds? At the end of the day, you are still the "more bigoted" person even when you make that argument.

By making the argument the way you did, not only did you verify that you are in fact a bigot, but you also used a counterattack so feeble that now anyone who reads your comment will dismiss you as a complete moron.

There is no way to fight against fact. Denying gays the right to marry is bigotry. There's no way around that. Either live with the knowledge that you're a bigot because of your intolerance or change your opinion. There is no third option.

 

[dlx22]

bigotry:
the intolerance and prejudice of a bigot
wordnet.princeton.edu/perl/webwn

A bigot is a prejudiced person who is intolerant of opinions, lifestyles, or identities differing from his or her own.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bigotry

The characteristic qualities of a bigot; intolerance or prejudice, especially religious or racial
en.wiktionary.org/wiki/bigotry

The rigid intolerance of ideas or persons seen as different.
www.publiceye.org/glossary/glossary_big.html

To be narrow minded or prejudice in your beliefs.
www.godonthe.net/dictionary/b.html

Intolerance toward those of different creeds or religious affiliations.
www.njfreemason.net/masonic dictionary.htm

prejudice and/or discrimination against one or all members of a particular group based on negative perceptions of their beliefs and practices or on negative group stereotypes

 

[Steeplerot]

Originally posted by: Atreus21


My revulsion to gay activity may be telling of my motivation,

Log cabin self-hating hypocricy is so Bush-era, just come out already.

 

[Harvey]

Originally posted by: Atreus21

My revulsion to gay activity may be telling of my motivation, but it doesn't debunk my arguments.

All it does is prove that you are a fscking BIGOT. Your revulsion is your problem. The Constitution does not give you the right to make it anyone else's.

Suck it up, and get over your self-centered, arrogant, BIGOTED self. :thumbsdown: :|

While you're at it, you'd better hope that some other group doesn't decide they don't like whatever group includes you and takes it on themselves to vote YOUR civil rights out of existence. :Q

 

[Craig234]

Originally posted by: Atreus21

Originally posted by: Craig234

Originally posted by: Atreus21

Originally posted by: Craig234

Originally posted by: Atreus21
[
Murder is wrong, no matter the motivation, coincidences, or circumstances. So is rape.

That's why people play with the definitions.

Is murder ok, when the state does it to a pisoner and calls it capital punishment?

For most of our country's history, if I understand the history correctly, the notion of a husband raping his wife was not legally recognized; it was a legal impossibility, his 'right'.

I know you have this cool little thing called "the argument there is right and wrong" and you want to play with it, but you are not doing anyone a favor with simplistic use of it.

And needless to say, you are not doing any favors either by pretending that actual, real issues of right and wrong are addressed by it, by trying to make the false analogy that if you can say murder and rape are 'absolutely wrong', than every issue fits into your black and white Manichean (look it up if needed, I had to the first time I saw it) paradigm.

What's the 'absolutely right or wrong' answer on how much the government should provide healthcare to the needy, or other investments in people's needs? What's the absolutely right or wrong amount they should tax? What's the absolutely right or wrong position on how much and how they should influence who is in power in other nations? What's the absolutely right or wrong way for them to split the budget on schools, roads, and police?

Oh, there isn't one? Would zero budgets for schools and police, leaving children uneducated and criminals running wild forming gangs to rule the city be 'absolutely wrong'?

Not everything is black and white. Some things are. If we don't start from the premise that there IS a right and wrong, we can't pass judgement on anything. Period.

I'm including the full quote to support my point that IMO that is a terribly inadequate response to the points in the preceding post.

The danger isn't in underestending the idea of 'absolute right and wrong', but in overextending it. You did not answer my questions, either.

I could say, I guess, that you are continuing the simplistic level of commentary I complained about, but that isn't the level I want to discuss on. You could hardly have better supported my description, though, of you having this neat little toy called 'the argument there's absolute right and wrong you want to play with' by fixating on it even after I made that point.

Here's an easy oen for you.

Would it have been absolutely wrong for someone in Germany - maybe one of his staff who believed his policies were terribly evil, as his actual attempted assassins did, maybe a Jew I'll invent who was an enslaved food preparer with access to poison him - to have murdered Hitler in WWII? You did say murder is an 'absolute wrong', right?

The reason my answer was short was because it's a premise that has to be established, or else we can't call anything good, bad, or even bigoted.

Not all killing is murder. In your case above, that would be killing to prevent others from being murdered. Similar to self defense. Killing the guilty in direct defense of the innocent isn't murder.

I have to go pick up my fiancee. I'll be back.

Just noting that Atreus has not responded to my post. He appears to just want to repeat his one little point over and over.

 

[OrByte]

Originally posted by: dlx22
bigotry:
the intolerance and prejudice of a bigot
wordnet.princeton.edu/perl/webwn

A bigot is a prejudiced person who is intolerant of opinions, lifestyles, or identities differing from his or her own.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bigotry

The characteristic qualities of a bigot; intolerance or prejudice, especially religious or racial
en.wiktionary.org/wiki/bigotry

The rigid intolerance of ideas or persons seen as different.
www.publiceye.org/glossary/glossary_big.html

To be narrow minded or prejudice in your beliefs.
www.godonthe.net/dictionary/b.html

Intolerance toward those of different creeds or religious affiliations.
www.njfreemason.net/masonic dictionary.htm

prejudice and/or discrimination against one or all members of a particular group based on negative perceptions of their beliefs and practices or on negative group stereotypes

yeah....there is no bigtory going on with Prop 8 supporters :roll:


/sarcasm

 

[Rainsford]

Originally posted by: Atreus21
...

I'm always told not to impose my morality on others. That means they want me to yield to their morality. I'm told to be tolerant of others, which means my ways are not tolerated. I'm told that women are supposed to be free to choose, unless of course they choose to agree with me.

These contradictions have been common of the modern left. What I want is to cease the dishonesty. You want what you want because you think it's right, good, and true. Just like the rest of us. But at least the rest of us admit it.

Nobody is forcing you to have a gay marriage...you are forcing gay people to not get married. That argument is repeated time and time again, and it doesn't get any less ridiculous with time. Only one party here is forcing their morality on others, and it's folks who want to ban gay marriage. You are free to hold whatever belief you want, that doesn't mean everyone has to respect it. That's one of the benefits of living in a free country, your personal values, morality and principles aren't up for a vote. If you want to believe gay marriage is the devil, you're perfectly entitled to do so...just like I'm free to believe whatever *I* want about gay marriage.

But in a free country, the law shouldn't be a tool to make other people follow our beliefs...end of the fucking story. You want to debate THAT idea, fine by me. But enough with the brainless sermonizing. I want people to be free to believe and do what they like, YOU want to force them to live by your beliefs. There is no equality, we are NOT the same.

 

[Craig234]

Originally posted by: Harvey

Originally posted by: Atreus21

My revulsion to gay activity may be telling of my motivation, but it doesn't debunk my arguments.

All it does is prove that you are a fscking BIGOT. Your revulsion is your problem. The Constitution does not give you the right to make it anyone else's.

Suck it up, and get over your self-centered, arrogant, BIGOTED self. :thumbsdown: :|

While you're at it, you'd better hope that some other group doesn't decide they don't like whatever group includes you and takes it on themselves to vote YOUR civil rights out of existence. :Q

Atreus and I share a revulsion to gay activity.

We differ in that I have a comprehension of homosexuality to understand its nature enough to appreciate why I feel as I do and why they are deserving of equality.

To paraphrase Harvey, I have no problem with a feeling of revulsion; I have a problem with unjust discrimination because of 'our problem' of that revulsion.

For a long time, men had a revulsion to the idea of women sharing equal voting power.

It was a blow to manhood to stop 'feeling' like we're superior and uniquely entitled to make decisions for society. is that something to be proud of? What's the more moral position?

Some people are revulsed by the very sight of inter-racial couples, much less imagining the sexual activity between them. I know someone who told me he had to count to 10 breathing deeply if he saw such a couple, to keep control (years later, he married a Korean woman he met while in the military there). Does that give them the right to say those inter-racial couples are not entitled to equal marital rights?

The people who hold that view - on race or sexual preference - are ignorant of the nature of the issues, and abusive of the power of the vote they have. They are not only an embarrassment as citizens, they are a menace to others, with their blind ignorance spewing forth evil in whatever form, whether denying the right to marry, the righ tto be a teacher, the right to adopt, even the right to be free or alive in some cases. They don't understand the wrong they are guilty of, for the most part, IMO.

 

[Extelleron]

Originally posted by: dmcowen674

Originally posted by: OFFascist

Originally posted by: JEDIYoda
This has nothing to do with a vote not going somebodys way. It has everything to do with peoples rights being taken away!

How can a "right" that has never existed be taken away?

Humans have un-alienable rights except in the eyes of bigots and haters like you.

Real Americans will run people like you out this country.

I don't see anything anywhere about state-sponsored gay marriage being an un-alienable right. Gay couples, like anyone in America, have a right to be together and do what they wish among themselves. The government, however, does not have to endorse that activity or broaden the definition of marriage to include it.

 

[dlx22]

Originally posted by: OrByte

Originally posted by: dlx22
bigotry:
the intolerance and prejudice of a bigot
wordnet.princeton.edu/perl/webwn

A bigot is a prejudiced person who is intolerant of opinions, lifestyles, or identities differing from his or her own.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bigotry

The characteristic qualities of a bigot; intolerance or prejudice, especially religious or racial
en.wiktionary.org/wiki/bigotry

The rigid intolerance of ideas or persons seen as different.
www.publiceye.org/glossary/glossary_big.html

To be narrow minded or prejudice in your beliefs.
www.godonthe.net/dictionary/b.html

Intolerance toward those of different creeds or religious affiliations.
www.njfreemason.net/masonic dictionary.htm

prejudice and/or discrimination against one or all members of a particular group based on negative perceptions of their beliefs and practices or on negative group stereotypes

yeah....there is no bigtory going on with Prop 8 supporters :roll:


/sarcasm

my whole point in posting these definitions was to show there are many given definitions one might use for bigotry. If you've read any of my other posts on the topic you'll see that i've stated several times that i support gay marriage because it does not affect me in any way so I don't feel i should infringe on someone elses rights. That being said the word bigot has been grossly overused in these kind of threads by anti prop 8 supporters. so say I use the definition: A bigot is a prejudiced person who is intolerant of opinions, lifestyles, or identities differing from his or her own. This deffinition could easy apply to 98% of the people that post on these forums regardless of which side of the issue they are on.

 

[Craig234]

Originally posted by: Extelleron

I don't see anything anywhere about state-sponsored gay marriage being an un-alienable right. Gay couples, like anyone in America, have a right to be together and do what they wish among themselves. The government, however, does not have to endorse that activity or broaden the definition of marriage to include it.

Then where do you see the right for inter-racial couples to get government to endorse their marriage and broaden th definition of marriage to include it? Do you?

 

[Craig234]

Originally posted by: dlx22

my whole point in posting these definitions was to show there are many given definitions one might use for bigotry. If you've read any of my other posts on the topic you'll see that i've stated several times that i support gay marriage because it does not affect me in any way so I don't feel i should infringe on someone elses rights. That being said the word bigot has been grossly overused in these kind of threads by anti prop 8 supporters. so say I use the definition: A bigot is a prejudiced person who is intolerant of opinions, lifestyles, or identities differing from his or her own. This deffinition could easy apply to 98% of the people that post on these forums regardless of which side of the issue they are on.

I thought your definitions post was fine, but you are way off base in saying the word bigotry has been overused by the supporters of equal rights for gays.

We've had discussions for *years* over thousands of posts here trying to pull the teeth of the gay marriage opponents to get them to give us a justification that's not bigotry.

They haven't, and we're *strongly* based in our use of the word for their views. You need to re-think your statement saying the word has been overused.

In contrast, the word *seems* overused to those who are not aware of the bigotry - often their own - as it always 'seems' that way at first, until it's recognized.

That's exactly what's needed is to use it and point out that the comfortable facades for wrongful discrimination are not accurate, that the real cause is bigotry.

 

[Extelleron]

Originally posted by: Craig234

Originally posted by: Extelleron

I don't see anything anywhere about state-sponsored gay marriage being an un-alienable right. Gay couples, like anyone in America, have a right to be together and do what they wish among themselves. The government, however, does not have to endorse that activity or broaden the definition of marriage to include it.

Then where do you see the right for inter-racial couples to get government to endorse their marriage and broaden th definition of marriage to include it? Do you?

There has never been anything wrong with inter-racial marriage, it is the same marriage between a man and a woman as with same-race couples. The bigots and idiots of the early 20th century and before were the ones keeping it from happening.

Gay marriage is different, it is a complete redefining of what marriage is and how we consider it - going from a traditional marriage between a man and a woman to where marriage is a loose term describing any sort of relationship between two people.

 

[dlx22]

Originally posted by: Extelleron

Originally posted by: dmcowen674

Originally posted by: OFFascist

Originally posted by: JEDIYoda
This has nothing to do with a vote not going somebodys way. It has everything to do with peoples rights being taken away!

How can a "right" that has never existed be taken away?

Humans have un-alienable rights except in the eyes of bigots and haters like you.

Real Americans will run people like you out this country.

I don't see anything anywhere about state-sponsored gay marriage being an un-alienable right. Gay couples, like anyone in America, have a right to be together and do what they wish among themselves. The government, however, does not have to endorse that activity or broaden the definition of marriage to include it.

I'll help you see it,
from the CA constitution
SECTION 1. All people are by nature free and independent and have
inalienable rights. Among these are enjoying and defending life and
liberty, acquiring, possessing, and protecting property, and pursuing
and obtaining safety, happiness, and privacy.

see how vague things like happiness are, one can easily equate marriage to fit within the inalienable rights that are listed in the CA constitution

 

[Craig234]

Originally posted by: Extelleron

Originally posted by: Craig234

Originally posted by: Extelleron

I don't see anything anywhere about state-sponsored gay marriage being an un-alienable right. Gay couples, like anyone in America, have a right to be together and do what they wish among themselves. The government, however, does not have to endorse that activity or broaden the definition of marriage to include it.

Then where do you see the right for inter-racial couples to get government to endorse their marriage and broaden th definition of marriage to include it? Do you?

There has never been anything wrong with inter-racial marriage, it is the same marriage between a man and a woman as with same-race couples. The bigots and idiots of the early 20th century and before were the ones keeping it from happening.

Gay marriage is different, it is a complete redefining of what marriage is and how we consider it - going from a traditional marriage between a man and a woman to where marriage is a loose term describing any sort of relationship between two people.

Sorry, no. Let's use your own language, and you tell me where it's off.

I don't see anything anywhere about state-sponsored inter-racial marriage being an un-alianable right. Inter-racial couples, like anyone in America, have a right to be together and to be what they wish among themselves. The government, however, does not have to endorse that activity or broaden the definition of marriage to include it.

Now, you tell me how that argument is wrong, but not wrong about gay marriage.

I don't want to hear your baseless conclusions about 'well that's just wrong' that have you abandoning the logic you want to apply to gay marriage, to evade the issue.

Either use the logic, or don't. Your 'there has never been anything wrong with' statement is totally 'illogical', and can easily be applied to gay marriage as well.

You throw around a lot of words carelessly, like the phrase "loose term" to refer to gay marriage. How is equality for inter-racial couples any less "loose" as an act than gays?

It's not. It's just a word that sounds good for attacking the equality for gays - who wants a 'loose definition', after all? But since you approve inter-racial marriage, that's not loose.

By the way - factually, you are off - multiple states outlawed inter-racial marriage until 1967, when they did not voluntarily stop but the Supreme Court forced them to.

 

[dlx22]

Originally posted by: Craig234

Originally posted by: dlx22

my whole point in posting these definitions was to show there are many given definitions one might use for bigotry. If you've read any of my other posts on the topic you'll see that i've stated several times that i support gay marriage because it does not affect me in any way so I don't feel i should infringe on someone elses rights. That being said the word bigot has been grossly overused in these kind of threads by anti prop 8 supporters. so say I use the definition: A bigot is a prejudiced person who is intolerant of opinions, lifestyles, or identities differing from his or her own. This deffinition could easy apply to 98% of the people that post on these forums regardless of which side of the issue they are on.

I thought your definitions post was fine, but you are way off base in saying the word bigotry has been overused by the supporters of equal rights for gays.

We've had discussions for *years* over thousands of posts here trying to pull the teeth of the gay marriage opponents to get them to give us a justification that's not bigotry.

They haven't, and we're *strongly* based in our use of the word for their views. You need to re-think your statement saying the word has been overused.

In contrast, the word *seems* overused to those who are not aware of the bigotry - often their own - as it always 'seems' that way at first, until it's recognized.

That's exactly what's needed is to use it and point out that the comfortable facades for wrongful discrimination are not accurate, that the real cause is bigotry.

It is certainly justified in certain scenarios, I guess I have overstated the extent i've seen it posted here, i'm not saying everyone but definately some, for instance craig I wouldn't consider you to be one whose over used it. Most of the times i've seen it overused are when people are emotionally reacting and not rationally reacting, i've just noticed it rubs some posters the wrong way, especially when they are classified as bigots before they even get a chance to explain themselves. Honestly I believe angering a bigot only makes them more of a bigot. I also understand some people need to see what there saying is truly bigotry at times.

 

[Extelleron]

Originally posted by: Craig234

Originally posted by: Extelleron

Originally posted by: Craig234

Originally posted by: Extelleron

I don't see anything anywhere about state-sponsored gay marriage being an un-alienable right. Gay couples, like anyone in America, have a right to be together and do what they wish among themselves. The government, however, does not have to endorse that activity or broaden the definition of marriage to include it.

Then where do you see the right for inter-racial couples to get government to endorse their marriage and broaden th definition of marriage to include it? Do you?

There has never been anything wrong with inter-racial marriage, it is the same marriage between a man and a woman as with same-race couples. The bigots and idiots of the early 20th century and before were the ones keeping it from happening.

Gay marriage is different, it is a complete redefining of what marriage is and how we consider it - going from a traditional marriage between a man and a woman to where marriage is a loose term describing any sort of relationship between two people.

Sorry, no. Let's use your own language, and you tell me where it's off.

I don't see anything anywhere about state-sponsored inter-racial marriage being an un-alianable right. Inter-racial couples, like anyone in America, have a right to be together and to be what they wish among themselves. The government, however, does not have to endorse that activity or broaden the definition of marriage to include it.

Now, you tell me how that argument is wrong, but not wrong about gay marriage.

I don't want to hear your baseless conclusions about 'well that's just wrong' that have you abandoning the logic you want to apply to gay marriage, to evade the issue.

Either use the logic, or don't. Your 'there has never been anything wrong with' statement is totally 'illogical', and can easily be applied to gay marriage as well.

You throw around a lot of words carelessly, like the phrase "loose term" to refer to gay marriage. How is equality for inter-racial couples any less "loose" as an act than gays?

It's not. It's just a word that sounds good for attacking the equality for gays - who wants a 'loose definition', after all? But since you approve inter-racial marriage, that's not loose.

By the way - factually, you are off - multiple states outlawed inter-racial marriage until 1967, when they did not voluntarily stop but the Supreme Court forced them to.

Marriage is a relationship between a man and a woman. Therefore, it is not and never was correct to alienate interracial couples and only allow same race couples to marry. Whether the laws prevented that is entirely irrelevant. A relationship between a black man and a white woman fall under the definition of marriage and therefore it is clear discrimination if you say that couple, "You can't marry because you are not of the same race."

Gay marriage is much different. A relationship between a gay man and another gay man does not fall under the definition of marriage. Therefore, it is not in any way discriminatory to say to that couple, "You can't marry, because you have no business doing so - marriage is between a man and a woman and does not apply to your relationship." It is no different than having different laws and guidelines for adults versus children or men versus women. How is it not the right of 5 year olds to live on their own and get married when older Americans are able to? Is that not clear discrimination? That sounds rediculous but it is the same idea as what gays are trying to do. Gays want to broaden the scope of marriage to include their relationships.

 

[Craig234]

Originally posted by: dlx22

Originally posted by: Craig234

Originally posted by: dlx22

my whole point in posting these definitions was to show there are many given definitions one might use for bigotry. If you've read any of my other posts on the topic you'll see that i've stated several times that i support gay marriage because it does not affect me in any way so I don't feel i should infringe on someone elses rights. That being said the word bigot has been grossly overused in these kind of threads by anti prop 8 supporters. so say I use the definition: A bigot is a prejudiced person who is intolerant of opinions, lifestyles, or identities differing from his or her own. This deffinition could easy apply to 98% of the people that post on these forums regardless of which side of the issue they are on.

I thought your definitions post was fine, but you are way off base in saying the word bigotry has been overused by the supporters of equal rights for gays.

We've had discussions for *years* over thousands of posts here trying to pull the teeth of the gay marriage opponents to get them to give us a justification that's not bigotry.

They haven't, and we're *strongly* based in our use of the word for their views. You need to re-think your statement saying the word has been overused.

In contrast, the word *seems* overused to those who are not aware of the bigotry - often their own - as it always 'seems' that way at first, until it's recognized.

That's exactly what's needed is to use it and point out that the comfortable facades for wrongful discrimination are not accurate, that the real cause is bigotry.

It is certainly justified in certain scenarios, I guess I have overstated the extent i've seen it posted here, i'm not saying everyone but definately some, for instance craig I wouldn't consider you to be one whose over used it. Most of the times i've seen it overused are when people are emotionally reacting and not rationally reacting, i've just noticed it rubs some posters the wrong way, especially when they are classified as bigots before they even get a chance to explain themselves. Honestly I believe angering a bigot only makes them more of a bigot. I also understand some people need to see what there saying is truly bigotry at times.

Well, thanks for those statements. For what it's worth, I think I've been especially aggressive in the use of the word - but careful at the same time, as explained in my post.

I've certainly been accused - predictably - by some for using it in the careless manner you describe, and have posted a similar position previously disagreeing.

On the bigot's reaction to being told he's a bigot - you are laregly right, but I think that's not the issue, really. I'm more interested in how they can recognize their bigotry; when in doubt, repeat the truth, even if it makes them angry and seems counter-productive. Pandering to their self-delusion that they're not bigoted leaves them comfortable in their bigotry and doesn't do much good, either, so it's time for another approach - like saying "you're a bigot" and planting the seed for them that hopefully has an effect later.

I've got my own experiences to understand how hard it is to see bigotry in yourself, to recognize it, how anyone pointing it out to you sounds like some crazy attacker.

It's why phrases like "the race card" are so popular, because they let the bigot dismiss the person pointing out bigotry as the one who is wrong, and not recognize the bigotry.

"When he played the race card, I just stopped listening. What a radical he is." That's the sound of the bigot not gaining any understanding.

Of course, the word bigot isn't the entire 'informational campaign' - that includes the 'rational discussion', the 'friendly, sympathetic comment' and more.

Frankly, little wors, but I think that clearly stating the truth when bigotry occurs is a helpful step despite all the complaining it gets, and I plan to continue that approach.

I also welcome your fair approach to looking at the definition and ensuring it's fairly applied, not used, as I agree it sometimes is, too loosely to demonize.

 

[OrByte]

Originally posted by: dlx22

It is certainly justified in certain scenarios, I guess I have overstated the extent i've seen it posted here, i'm not saying everyone but definately some, for instance craig I wouldn't consider you to be one whose over used it. Most of the times i've seen it overused are when people are emotionally reacting and not rationally reacting, i've just noticed it rubs some posters the wrong way, especially when they are classified as bigots before they even get a chance to explain themselves. Honestly I believe angering a bigot only makes them more of a bigot. I also understand some people need to see what there saying is truly bigotry at times.

I agree with this, but when people can't see their own bigotry it does no good to ignore it.

I will call it out if I see it. Many others here do the same.

 

[Craig234]

Originally posted by: Extelleron

Marriage is a relationship between a man and a woman. Therefore, it is not and never was correct to alienate interracial couples and only allow same race couples to marry. Whether the laws prevented that is entirely irrelevant. A relationship between a black man and a white woman fall under the definition of marriage and therefore it is clear discrimination if you say that couple, "You can't marry because you are not of the same race."

Gay marriage is much different. A relationship between a gay man and another gay man does not fall under the definition of marriage. Therefore, it is not in any way discriminatory to say to that couple, "You can't marry, because you have no business doing so - marriage is between a man and a woman and does not apply to your relationship." It is no different than having different laws and guidelines for adults versus children or men versus women. How is it not the right of 5 year olds to live on their own and get married when older Americans are able to? Is that not clear discrimination? That sounds rediculous but it is the same idea as what gays are trying to do. Gays want to broaden the scope of marriage to include their relationships.

You seem challenged to respond to my posts, so let me try another approach, questions.

1. Were the biblical leaders who had many wives "married"?

2. Are the gay couples now legally married - the 16,000 in California, the many in Massachussets - married?

2. At what age, if any, is one of the spouses (usually the female) too young to get married, e.g.. when societies marry, say, a 9 year old girl to a boy or man, is that a marriage?