Gotcha. Advocating traditional marriage = bigotry. I know that’s the consensus around here. I’m not trying to change anything. It just tickles me to see how “tolerant” some are of opposing beliefs.
When your opposing belief constricts my freedoms, then yes, I will not be “tolerant” of your opposing belief. The idea that the curtailing of freedom and the expansion of freedom are equivalent under some sort of “tolerance” banner is a genius creation of the Right…
Oh, and your side does NOT advocate traditional marriage, btw. I don’t see too many Right-Wingers openly advocating for chattel status for women or the ending of wive’s rights to own property in their own name or be able to divorce their husbands. I don’t see most Right-Wingers advocating the return of anti-miscegenation laws. I don’t see most Right-Wingers advocating for allowing husbands to rape their wives within the law again.
No, what most Right-Wingers appear to advocate is actually “keeping the uppity queers in their place”. When one of you manages to actually dig up a rational non-religious reasoning for opposing gay marriage, I’d love to hear it…
Hey, I’m very much in favor of traditional marriage. And also gay marriage. And I have seen only a few people make arguments justifying their opposition to gay marriage that did not come across as bigotry.
Period.
“I think my religious beliefs should be enshrined into law” = bigotry
“My opinion is that the homosexual agenda is intent on destroying the traditional family” = bigotry
“Traditionally, only marriages of one man and one woman have existed, so therefore that’s the only thing that we can permit.” = bigotry
Oh, and there are a number of people on this board who believe that two adult gay people should be entitled to contract marriage, who are to the absolute best of my knowledge not interested in the slightest in having sex with their dogs (some of them don’t even have dogs). Considering that Rick Santorum’s version of devout Catholicism (he’s not a fundamentalist, he’s a conservative Catholic) sees no difference between loving another adult of the same sex and, quite literally, screwing the pooch, Santorum policy on gay marriage = bigotry
My goodness, you really like changing people’s statements around, don’t you? Tell me, do you bother looking up the actual definitions of any of these words you insist on using? “Tolerate” does not mean agree with. I’m tolerant of your belief. Have I once said you’re a freak because you want to marry someone of the opposite sex, and it shouldn’t be allowed, and it’s a sin against nature and you’ll burn in hell? No. Nor do I believe any of those things. Nor would I try to stop you from marrying someone of the opposite sex. That’s what tolerance means. That I accept your beliefs differ from mine and you have the right to have them. That tolerance ceases the second you attempt to impose your beliefs on other people.
The operative word being “intolerance”. Just how “intolerent” does one have to be to be a bigot? That was why I asked about whether he wanted to forbid gays from teaching in public schools. Are John McCain, Colin Powel, and John Kerry all bigots because of their position on SSM and gays in the military?
Just for clarification, are you interested in expanding those freedoms you personally want or expanding all freedoms and curtailing/limiting none?
Yes. Also cowards for putting their re-elections in front of doing what’s right.
There’s no discernible middle ground? We can’t manage to do a reasonable cost/benefit analysis to extrapolate from what we know and find out if gay marriage would actually cause problems for straight married couples? We can’t allow an expansion of freedom in a reasonable and measured manner without opening wide the doors to barbarism and the end of civilization as we know it?
I’d call you a drama queen but I think that might be giving you too much credit…
Thia is just what I mean. It’s like saying “discriminate” simply means “draw a distinction between”, and then saying someone who opposes affirmative action is in favor of discriminating against blacks. You want it both ways. You want the word to be interpreted in it’s most benign definition when questioned, then be able to tar someone with it in it’s more colloquial sense.
Just another day discussing bigotry and homophobia on SDMB.
:dubious:
First off, “it’s” means “it is,” “its” indicates possessive.
Second. What the fuck are you on about?
Wow, you’re tough. Seems like almost everyone is a bigot-- except for you, of course.
First of all, I asked you for clarification. You’re chooseing to not provide it is not helful. But I think where your answer goes points to is reasonable territory. That’s exactly what I advocate. And in the middle ground that you also seem to advocate, just because someone’s position might cost you something doesn’t mean it is either incorrect (for that reason) or that he holds that position for hateful reasons. American societyhas, for the most part, moved to expand freedoms. But we don’t do it willy nilly or, as oyu say, openiing wide the doors to barbarism. The question is just how wide and how fast. We, as a society may never decide to treat SSM the same as traditional marriage. Maybe we will. But to say that all those who might not agree with you do so for low reasons is IMO either delusional or dishonest or lazy thinking.
First off: Yes, thank. And that should be the worst of my errors on a message board.
Second: You’re reply to John Mace indicatiing that you consider John McCain, Colin Powel, and John Kerry to all be bigots is exactly the kind of nonsense I was talking about.
Make that “Yes, thanks…”
See what I mean?
Oh, I’ve got prejudices. But then again, I’m not running for office or writing legislation. My prejudices don’t affect several thousand people; AFAIK, they only affect me.
First, you’re welcome, but it won’t be.
News flash: everyone has prejudices. Everyone is a little bit of a bigot. Again, the difference is, the people John mentioned are supposed to keep their prejudices from interfering with their work as much as possible because they represent many people who elected them to serve in the best interest of all the people and uphold the constitution. Caving on your convictions just because you might not be able to spend a few more years on the public dole is pretty fuckin’ contemptible.
This we agree on. I feel sorry for Powell, but the other two, who just can’t stop themselves from doing whatever they think will keep them sucking at the public teat, fuck 'em both. As well as the other 90%+ of our elected officials with the same mindset.
Time to hit the rack. Had a long weekend out of town and a trying day with work. Until tomorrow…
This is a very misleading phrasing, as it implies that supporting gay marriage is the same as being opposed to traditional marriage. Gay marriage does not come at the price of traditional marriage. Supporters of gay marriage also support traditional marriage. What Santorum advocates is denial of marriage to a significant portion of the population for no cause.
As it is an inherently prejudicial and ignorant stance, yes, he must have.
Not quite what I said. We agree that racism is a moral defect, right? Would you agree that homophobia (leave aside for a moment the question of what constitutes homophobia, or wether Santorum is a homophobe) is also a moral defect? I’m saying that it is the same moral defect, just as the person who steals wallets and the person who steals sports cars suffer from the same moral defect. Now, if a known wallet thief is in the neighborhood when a sports car goes missing, the fact that he’s a wallet thief isn’t proof that he took the sports car. But since you know he’s the kind of person who doesn’t mind taking stuff that doesn’t belong to him, you maybe give him a closer look when you’re trying to come up with suspects.
No, I left that stuff out on purpose. Even if he is a racist, we don’t know how severe a racist he is. There are degrees of bigotry, after all, and I find it highly unlikely that Santorum is a murderous bigot, of any stripe. His distaste for homosexuals is palpable and explicit, but I doubt he wants us all dead.
Well, I appreciate that you hold me to a high standard, but I stand by everything I’ve said in this thread.
I’m very tolerant of opposing beliefs. I don’t believe in God, but I don’t mind that other people do. I support abortion, but I can respect people who oppose it. I can respect most anybody, so long as they respect me.
Rick Santorum does not respect me. He compares me to adulterers, child molestors, and dog fuckers. So, I don’t respect Rick Santorum, and I don’t respect his attempts to alter the Constitution specifically to deny me a right that costs him nothing to give me. He’s a bigot, and not just because he opposes gay marriage, and that’s not something I’m tolerant of. And I’m not ashamed to say so.