Sorry, SHAKES, but yes, you ARE a bigot

Per the following threads:

The solution to the gay marriage controversy(?)


It can. But why does it have to be called marriage? When marriage is already being used by mostly hetero couples. Calling it marriage just kind of craps all over the marriage my parents had or my grandparents had ect…



Well, actually, yeah. I’m mean you talk like that it’s not really such a big deal, but it is. I don’t want to get you riled up again Sol, but this kind of all ties back into why I say (think) gay marriages aren’t as equal as hetero ones are…

Disclaimer: even though I think this doesn’t mean I think gay people are inferior. In the end we’re all just human…


And of course, there was this thread he started: IF we allow gay marriages…(a different take. (I think))

I’ll skip his opening argument, because he admits it makes no sense, since he was, as he claimed, drunk at the time it was posted. Nonetheless, his sober arguments weren’t much of an improvement:


One thing that still gets me though about homosexuallity is the fact that we’re seemingly treating it like people who are gay are born into a race itself like Asian, Indian ect…Shouldn’t we instead be treating this as if it were a sickness like cancer or Autism ect…? And don’t WE as a society have a moral obligation to try and find a cure for it? Which btw I think marriage does in a way normalize it and takes away from the fact that maybe we need to be more proactive in finding a “cure” for this. I mean really, I think with the proper research it would be great if a hundred years from now instead of gay people having to go through all this turmoil can take a pill or whatever to make them better. And by better I mean the way nature (God/Darwin/natrual order of the universe) intended it to be.


THEN, after all that, you say:

Okay, let’s review, shall we?

So far, you’ve compared being gay to cancer, autism, an ass pimple, asthma, unnatural, it’s a sickness, abnormal, etc. Something wrong with the “brain chemistry.” You don’t believe they should be allowed to have privacy, in that YOU have the “right” to know that they’re gay, because you don’t want to associate with them. (At least at the gym, or at the doctor, because, doncha know, those damn homos just lust after everything with a penis!)
You say that in your experience (FIVE people that you know of, who were gay), gays are corrupt, that their love can never be as good or decent or equal as that between a man and a woman.

As for the stigma-ever stop and think that statements like your’s are only contributing to that stigma? Irony, you’re soaking in it!

You say that allowing gays to get married, two people who love each other, want to commit and take care of each other, is “crapping on the union that your grandparents had.”

You give us that you “support civil unions, just not marriage.” Well that’s bullshit. That’s like saying that blacks and whites in the South prior to the Civil Rights Act were equal because they both had water fountains.
So basically, gays are unnatural, diseased, their feelings are inferior, that them getting married would be an insult to straights…but you’re not a bigot.

Right. If that were true, then I would HATE to see what you consider real bigotry.

Just because you’re not out playing “smear the queer!” every night doesn’t mean you’re not being a prejudiced jackass. Just like the alcoholic husband who insults his wife and puts her down, but hey, “at least I don’t HIT her.”

And it doesn’t matter if you “believe” they aren’t inferior. Whether you do or not. It matters that you TREAT them as inferior, with your statements and your actions.

You make a pretty convincing case, Guin.

Hey SHAKES - by your own admission you’re a bigot.

Intolerence and willful ignorance are, in my mind, far worse than being gay. You can’t help being gay.

Wow, defensive much? I submit that this disclaimer was posted because you DO realize that you are uncomfortably close to hate speech here, or at least what a sizeable percentage of the population of this board would consider hateful and deeply offensive.

Yes, because i’m sure you know exactly how ‘Nature, God, Darwin, and the natrual [sic] order of the universe intended it to be’ :rolleyes:

Holy Fuck! I can’t believe you actually said this. What size sheet do you wear?

Because I’m quite sure that all those god-hatin’ pillow-bitin’ evil-spreadin’ gays WANT to be cured, right SHAKES?
BTW, nice strawman…

Gay problem, huh? Kind of like that pesky old ‘jewish problem’ a few years back?

Go piss up a rope, SHAKES. Your intolerance disgusts me.

So, are you pissed because they were deceivers or because you were deceived? If you’re pissed because you were a sucker, how is this their fault, and how does their being gay make you a sucker?

That’s one that really riles my ass. If marriage is so fucking sacred, then outlaw divorce.

Amen! Good point! I never thought of that.
SHAKES is certainly acting bigoted but at least he seems open to discussion, so maybe as long as no one turns up the heat this can have a good ending.

We don’t agree often, but kudos to you for pointing this out.

You know who craps on the institution of marriage? Irresponsible people who don’t take their promises seriously.

Granted, by allowing gays to marry we will see an increase of gay divorce and annulment, because irresponsibility and bad decision-making knows no color, gender, or sexual orientation, I’m afraid.

True, but I suspect the increase will be proportional and the percentage will remain about the same.

I think Britney Spears is much more an affront to traditional marriage than gay people are. :smiley:

I wasn’t gonna name names, but I was thinking the same thing. :wink:

Elizabeth Taylor too. There should be a limit to the number of times you can promise to spend the rest of your life with someone, seriously.

Shakes, thanks for the “Jerry Springer” moment, you have just provided the mouth-breatin’, gun totin’ rednecks on this board with a few steps up the evolutionary ladder and speaking as the poster-boy I THANK YOU.


A-fucking-men. I have a (not-so) great-uncle who is against gay marriage. He’s on his third wife. :smack: :smack: :smack:

That sounds good on the surface, but if you turn that rock over, you’ll see what’s crawling underneath: Most rabid anit-gays would love to outlaw divorce. Seriously, ask the Catholic Church if that would be such a bad idea.

My biggest beef, with SHAKES, so far, is that he seems to want it both ways: he spews his garbage and bigotry all over the place, and yet insists that we not think of him as a bigot.

I’ve seen that with a LOT of people-they want to be able to say, “Well, I’m not a racist, but those no good black/Asian/Jews blah blah blah…”

Nope, sorry. You CANNOT have it both ways. If you are going to make these kinds of statements, then you have to accept that people are going to see you (correctly) as a bigot. If you don’t want to be known as a bigot, well, then stop acting like one.

I’ll suggest that people give him a chance to 'splain himself before the pile on ensues.

Careful motherfucker, Divorce is my livelihood and job security. If you say it any louder, and the administration get ahold of it, they might pass the “Defense of Hating Each Other and Staying Together Even Though We’re Miserable” Act.



(Re: SHAKES “By that I mean if say like an owner of a bar wants to refuse service to black people than I think he should be able to do so”)]

Holy Fuck! I can’t believe you actually said this. What size sheet do you wear?
Supporting unconditional, individual property rights doesn’t necessarily make one a klansman.

No, it doesn’t. But we have laws here that state when one opens up a business in the PUBLIC sector, even if it is PRIVATELY owned, one cannot discriminate based on race, and for very good reason.

So are all 125+ million people in Japan racists?

Huh? :confused:

Oh, yeah! I’m at work right now. When I get a chance I’ll be back.

Not dodging anyone here…

When you do come back, SHAKES*, I’d be obliged if you would very carefully and clearly explain the comment about your grandparents; specifically, how one instance of something is debased by the mere existence of something completely separate that is similar, but not exactly the same.