Bigot * n * a person who is intolerant of any ideas than his own, esp. on religion, politics, or race. - '**big-ot+ed ** * adj *
That’s just so everyone’s on the same page.
From what I’ve read of your posts in this thread, Texas, I wouldn’t say you were * bigoted * as per the above definition. You said
And this seems to indicate that you can tolerate homosexuality, even if you don’t particularly like it. Therefore I feel that bigoted is, perhaps, the wrong word to describe your position. Prejudiced would be better IMO. If you thought that homosexuality should be made illegal and shouldn’t be tolerated in any form that would make you a bigot because you would be being extremely intolerant to the point of literal bigotry.
You seem pretty intolerant of homosexuals. Maybe I’m just misunderstanding what you meant when you wrote:
Of course, you do offer a seemlingly-rational reason for your belief, but I personally think that those rationalizations are just a cover story, especially since they seem to be heavily based on the arbitrary social belief that “sex is for reproduction”.
In the interest of thread coherence, I won’t raise the debate as to the naturality of nontraditional relationships or of the fundamental irrationality (not to mention unfairness) of dictating that sex (or relationships) are for reproduction. These issues have been discussed to death elsewhere, on this board and off of it. If you want to discuss them, either start a new thread or reread one of the others that have already beaten it to death.
I refuse to accept a set of arbitrary social rules that amount to forbidding me (as a sterile woman) from having sex, and that forbid me from having sex with the woman I love. I have trouble beliving that a relationship that feels so intensely right could possibly be unnatural, especially when you consider that we found each other almost entirely by accident. I can’t believe that there is any evident natural truth to the claims that sex is for reproduction, relationships are for childrearing, or heterosexuality is preferable to homosexuality. People who say they are are ignoring a huge mass of evidence to the contrary.
Now I’m really starting to doubt your competence. How am I not recognizing other people’s opinions? Do you think possibly that saying things like, “I realize that some people do” and “though I know many people will disagree with me” maybe show that I recognize other opinions? I have tried to show how I understand where the oposite opinion is coming from. I know the reasons most people with the opposite view from me have. I recognize that a lot of it makes sense. However, I think that my side makes more sense to me. Also I did not try to redefine bigot to suit my needs. I pulled its definition from http://www.dictionary.com. Its not my definition its the definition. Also, my words are not betraying me. I don’t think I’m tricking myself up or anything. These are the real opinions that I have.
Once again, how do you know how my parent’s programmed me. For all you know I could have had a split up family that I ran away from at the age of ten.
To be honest, I’ve never even heard of Hegemonic compulsory heterosexuality before. However, I don’t really think it has any relevance to me because I don’t think that I chose to be straight. In fact, I don’t think people choose to be gay or straight. I think that people are born that way. I don’t think I’m living a false life or whatever you are trying to say. To me this sounds like the most childish of retorts where you tell me that the only reason I feel this way is because I am ashamed of my true feelings.
I’m trying to keep this civil but you are making it hard. Once again, I don’t think that I am a bigot because I am tolerant of other people’s views and I recognize their reasons behind them. I just think that hearing both sides that the one I have taken is correct.
The reason I don’t think that I am intolerant of homosexuals is that I have taken the time to find out about something that seemed so foreign to me at first. I respect that it exists and is not just in the person’s mind. I do not think that we as a society should discriminate against homosexuals or have homosexuality be illegal.
To use a very bad analogy, some people do not believe in premarital sex. They have very sound and rational arguments behind what they say. However, I have also weighed the arguments on the other side and feel that in my opinion having premarital sex is preferable. Now I guess the people against it could call me immoral or a bigot, but they usually don’t since it seems to be more acceptable to have premarital sex nowadays.
I don’t see how saying that sex is for reproduction is an arbitrary social belief. If we didn’t have sex for reproduction we wouldn’t exist. Now that is not saying that nothing else good can come from sex, but I believe that reproduction is the primary and by far most important aspect of it.
I also definitely think that relationships between a man and a woman are crucial to childreering. I am not going to look it up, I guess I could if you want me to, but I think that statistics will show that children are much better off in stable homes with a mother and father. I guess using words like “better off” and not showing any statistics can make my point here very weak, but I honestly feel that the majority of people agree with me on this.
Taking those two things together is my main reasoning behind saying homosexuality is unnatural. I know I previously stated that I also felt it was wrong. I don’t feel like going into that right now since I have a final in a couple of hours, but it isn’t based on possible preconceived notions people may have that I think it is immoral or anything like that. It has more to do with saying that the more we accept and teach and the more homosexuals try to extol its virtues and say it is natural, I believe that we confuse children at an early age by bringing up the topic of sex to early. But I don’t really want to get into it too much right now.
Thanks for having a rational conversation and if you want to put me in my place and tell me how wrong I was on anything else, I will probably check this tomorrow or so.
I’m not aware of any statistics that show that a child is better off in a family with two parents of opposite sex than in a family with two parents of the same sex. There is lots of evidence that children are better off with two parents than with one, but that’s not pertinent to this debate. (I personally think that they’d be even better off with three or four parents, but our societal prejudice against polyamory is even stronger than its prejudice against homosexuality.)
I don’t think you have enough evidence to justify a belief in the unnaturality of homosexuality; at best you’re using very minimal evidence and at worst you are misinterpreting (intentionally or not) irrelevant evidence. In any case, the evidence is not sufficient to justify creating an underclass of citizens within society, especially when membership in that class is based on an involuntary characteristic.
I didn’t choose who I am. I just am. I tried to deny it for years, in large part because of listening to people who spewed out the same stuff you are now, and nearly killed myself in the process. When I finally let go of all that and accepted who I was, my quality of life went from barely holding on to quite good. If I had continued to live in the reality you seek to create, I would probably have killed myself by now. Is that “natural”?
Well people who call others bigoted over his opinion are just as bad as people who believe that homosexuality is immoral and wrong. He has a opinion not based on evidence therefore he doesen’t act on that opinion.
The bible however doesent IMHO say homosexuality is wrong.
Who says you can’t be a bigot and still tolerate others? There are plenty of beliefs and behaviors that I dislike and a few that might really turn my stomach. But as long as they’re not interfering with my life or the life of others I pretty much leave them alone. Toleration isn’t the same as respect nor is it about acceptance.
Texas Spur, I can only sympathize. I too am from that slough of negativity between Pennsylvania and Vermont. But let’s address your points.
Responding to Hastur, you said:
I find the issue to be a bit more complex than either you or Hastur does. By the strict dictionary definition, no, you are not a bigot. However, insofar as I do any mental classification, I divide the world into two groups: those who feel their way of doing things is right for everybody, and those who rejoice that others differ from them, and take joy in learning from those differences more about what it is to be human.
By your assertions, despite your attitude of tolerance, you seem to fall into the first group. You are of course welcome to refute this, but the views you’ve espoused so far lead me to believe this.
Small grammar hijack before I comment: The word for “work together to make up halves of a complete whole, which neither would separately do” is “complement” with an E. I would hope that men and women complimented each other, at least when they deserve praise, and in general they do a fine job of complementing each other as well.
The question of “natural” in this regard is one that bothers me. I think the gay posters will not condemn me for making the obvious observation that the “natural” way of producing children involves one man and one woman. And the majority of human beings are so geared as to find one person of the opposite sex so essential to their own being as to want to spend their lives with that person, including good healthy sex as a small aspect of that union.
Some do not. In addition to those people (estimates range from 3% to 13% of the population) who are solely attracted to persons of their own sex (or so nearly so as to make the exceptions negligible), there are people who are so geared as to be loners, with or without a healthy social and perhaps sexual life but without that desire for lifelong union that characterizes a good marriage.
Are these people unnatural? I had a maiden aunt who enjoyed life immensely but never fell in love, and another who had one ill-starred love affair before I was born and never fell in love again until she was nearly 70 (and married happily then). Without being unduly combative, I dare you to tell me my aunts were “unnatural.”
Whatever may be the cause of the gay orientation, the almost universal testimony of gay people is that it was not something chosen but a recognition of something they had always felt in themselves, implying that the origin of it dates from well before the age of reason. (Whether the cause is genetic, congenital, or from early childhood environment remains disputed, with congenital having a slight edge over genetic and nurture running a Naderian third.)
Contrary to Kelly’s comment, you do have a point that the ideal parenting combination for a child includes at least one same-sex and one opposite-sex caregiver. Successful single mothers often draft their father or brother, or a close male friend, into such a role. However, she is right that two people, of whatever sex, are better than one in parenting, and often gay couples with children will find a friend of the opposite sex to function as honorary aunt or uncle to the kid(s).
And, of course, needless to say, adoption, fostering, and other “unnatural” means of providing for the mutual desire for parent and child where a child is bereft of parents and a person or couple wishes to take a child as his/her/their own are quite common. As half of a childless couple who gladly functioned as guardians to three wonderful boys, I’d resent the hell out of anyone calling that relationship “unnatural.” At rock bottom, Charlie, you’re saying, in effect, “I (not necessarily you personally, but persons of the view you seem to espouse) got lucky, with a heterosexual marriage and kids, and to heck with anyone who drew the short end of the stick; they don’t deserve any happiness in their lives.” And that attitude sucks, to put it bluntly. I’m glad for you, if you have indeed got a wife and kids you love, but I’m glad for Hastur and his partner as well. (Linguistic hijack #2: Would you guys come up with a new term, please? “Partners” in a “civil union” makes you sound like you view your life together in Wall Street or mercantile terms! :))
May God grant that you never have a gay child then, or that you learn and grow. The one thing any child needs, but gay kids more than most, is total, accepting love. This does not mean that you cannot judge a child’s life decisions and help them grow into healthier, better adjusted adults, but it does mean that if you do not love a gay child for his or her gayness, not in spite of it, you have become a poor parent for that child. I think any PFLAG member could say that much better than I did, but I trust you’ll see my point despite the poor wording.
And, my friend, you simply have no grasp of people in general if you feel that no gay person can fall in love. Try to understand, if you disagree with everything else I have said, that John-loves-Mary differs in no way from John-loves-Pete or Mary-loves-Jennifer except in how society has condemned the latter two relationships and in the guilt that commonly results from that condemnation over what should be a joyful love (and, as you note, the fact that the first relationship may be able to produce children without benefit of turkey baster or surrogate mother – but don’t count on it; infertility is not uncommon).
That is touching (and I’m sincere) – if the “meaning of life” does not at minimum include a satisfying love relationship and the privilege to nurture children and raise them as you define, whatever else it means, I will gladly join the Skeptics Society. But I have found great fulfillment in my wife of 25+ years, three boys who happen to have been produced by sperm and eggs that had no relation to either of us but who found their way into our lives in varying ways, and their wonderful children, who consider us as honorary aunt and uncle or grandparents. Reproductive biology had nothing to do with it (except to bring together our boys and the girls with whom they fell in love and on whom they fathered the children).
I know you’re avoiding religion in this discussion, but I’d like to suggest something to you. God, in my humble opinion, tends to build his elaborate superstructures on quite humble foundations: the Roman Catholic Church, for example, on a fisherman turned itinerant evangelist. As social animals, we find joy in sharing the fulfillment of our biological needs in things like dinner parties, church suppers, and so on.
The key to his message, if the Gospels and letters of the New Testament are any indication, is in love. He is a god of love. And he builds the love on which marriages are founded on healthy sexual attraction. To reduce marriage to a means of having licit sex and producing children is to minimize the great value it has to each partner for solace, intimacy, sharing of joy, comfort, and just plain contentment in daily life. Except for the possibility of engendering children by intercourse, every part of that is as available to two people of the same sex who fund each other loveable as it is to a man and a woman who find each other loveable. Think it over.
Sorry for the delay in responding. I wasn’t ignoring you, but was away during the weekend and could not reply.
OK, if I called you a bigot I withdraw the charge, as you seem willing to hear other people out, whether or not you accept their arguments. I think you have been answered at length by others here (and probably in a more eloquent manner than I could) but I would like to make a couple comments before bowing out of this thread:
Well, there is certainly a large grey area between a vague dislike of another’s behavior and active intolerance. While the oil patch types I mentioned may not have been so intolerant as to physically attack someone who was known to have a companion of another race, they were nevertheless highly negative about the idea, and did not hesitate to express their disapproval vocally. They could not, moreover, explain in a clear manner what bothered them so much about such a practice, except for some generalities about “mongrelization” of the races. As this line of thinking proceeds from a false premise to begin with (that is, “mongrelization” is somehow a negative feature), to my mind it doesn’t explain why someone would become upset about it, especially when not directly impacted by the practice. So it is with homosexuality. Ask yourself, “why should I have any opinion at all on the naturalness or unnaturalness of homosexuality?”, expecially if you are quite sure about your own sexual orientation?
If you check around the scientific literature a bit I am sure you will find that homosexual behavior has been observed in many, if not most, mammalian species. To my understanding, homosexuality may be a choice for certain individuals, but according to the bulk of the evidence, it probably is not. If it is something that is hard-wired into the makeup of certain individuals, can it then be “unnatural”?
IMO, it’s an excellent comparison, then. I submit that there are no “real” differences among people of different sexual orientation, that are not imposed by the cultural biases of the society in which they live. The difference here is your opinion versus mine on what constitutes a “real” difference between individuals of a given species. In this case, a question you could ask yourself is, “can I infallibly identify from appearance alone someone who is not exclusively heterosexual?” While there are certainly homosexual and bisexual individuals who provide visual cues to their orientation, not all do, and I think after fair consideration your answer would be “no”.
Even if the above is true, what fundamental difference does it make to the species if a particular individual has a partner of the same sex? You seem to be arguing that the only important feature of our existence is to perpetuate the species by having children, and that the only “correct” union is a permanent bond between a male-female pair. If so, that is important only at the species level, not the individual.
If you are arguing, as you seem to in your other posts in this thread, that the children of homosexual family groups are somehow hopelessly disadvantaged compared to those from hetero ones, I’d have to see stats on that; I know of no particular evidence that this is so. Furthermore, if such is the case, the cause would more likely be due to ingrained prejudices in our culture, rather than some inherent failure on the part of the parents. Lastly, if the rearing of children is no factor in a particular homosexual relationship (and this is surely true in many cases), of what relevance is your argument anyway?
If it’s of any interest to you, I’m exclusively hetero. I mention this only so that you understand I have no particular vested interest in pushing my viwewpoint on you, except that I think you are shortchanging yourself a bit to isolate certain people from your full trust or compassion because you believe that their sexual orientation is “unnatural”, without significant evidence that this is true.
If you want to talk differences then you might wish to state that you think Catholic priesthood is wrong an unnatural.
If you are a practicing heterosexual (or perfecting as the case may be) then you have a lot more in common with a homosexual than you do with someone who does not have sex at all (either by vow or by lack of inclination).
The human sex urge is quite a natural thing when if you go and exclude people from your group just because they park their bus in a different garage than you do then IMHO you are kinda’ missing out on the program.
I still think you are a bigot because you state that you feel being queer is wrong and whatnot, but don’t get me wrong. My dad is a bigot for the same reasons as well as being a racist. I love him dearly but we can pretty much only talk about guns and titties w/o arguing.
Me too, I’m a bigot as well, just a different kind of bigot than you are. I’m even a bit of a racist which I am trying to overcome with intellect as I feel that excluding a whole group of people just shortchanges me from a real life experience.
[semi-hijack] One related pet peeve is that people saying it’s wrong to dislike homosexuals because they cant’ help it really bugs me. IMHO that phrase implies in and of itself that it’s like being retarded or a cleptomaniac. Being gay is just being gay. I’m a jew. Your from New York. He’s gay. BFD. None of those are something that should be gotten over or treated as an inferior trait (well being from NY is pretty fucked up but I’m willing to forgive.).[/semi-hijack]
Sorry I have been away. I think this thread maybe concluding anyway.
Polycarp
I appreciate your response. I think that a lot of what you say is true and sincere. The reason I disagree with the term bigot has more to it than me thinking that I am technically not deserving of the term because of the dictionary definition. I am also against the term for the connotations it has. In our society I think that when most people hear bigot, they think of racism and hate. Not to say that a bigot couldn’t also be a person who hates gays, I just think that the term makes people think racist. Maybe to homosexuals it doesn’t, but I think to the majority of people it does. I don’t hate either homosexuals or anyone else simply because of what they are. If two men want to engage in sex with each other, I think that’s fine and legal. I just don’t want it celebrated as perfectly normal and taught to children as great and normal just like I don’t want s & m taught to children as a normal way of life. If people think that they these types of things are for them then fine.
I did not mean to insuate that I believe that people who can not biologically have children are unnatural. That is awful if a person can’t. Of course there is a huge difference between that and being homosexual. For one thing, I don’t think a man who is impotent would be insulted if a doctor suggested treatment for his problem. Obviously a gay person does not want homosexuality to be considered an ailment and also does not want treatment to cure them.
Also, I do not think that someone who nevers finds love or loses love is unnatural. There does seem to be something a little odd to me about a person who does not ever want to find someone to fall in love with. I’m not going to call your aunts unnatural one because she lost a love and couldn’t find one until late in life and the other because of lack of knowledge about her. If she was a hermit who was against finding love and secluded herself from everyone else then I would consider that abnormal. However this does not seem to be the case since you know that she enjoyed life.
I do pray that God never grants me a gay child, impotent child, deaf child, one armed child, murderous child, hateful child, and several other things. Like I said before though, it doesn’t mean I won’t love them. My love would be unconditional.
I never said I don’t think that a gay person can fall in love with another gay person. I understand that love can be just as heartfelt between a gay couple and a straight couple.
I didn’t want to bring religion into it because then instead of being just called a bigot, I would be called a christian bigot or worse. People do not see the hypocrisy in being intolerant towards Christians when calling people to be more tolerant. Also, then they would also say that my entire stance stem from some obscure text in the Old Testament. This is simply not the case. I don’t really think religion has much to do with my argument in the way I’m presenting it. Does my belief that Jesus Christ calls for us to love factor into my opinion that the meaning of life is being in a loving relationship with soemone that brings about a child? Of course it does.
I watched the movie American History X today, and it concludes with a quote saying basically that hate is baggage that we don’t need. I think this is probably one of the truest things that can be said. If your hate consumes you then you will not be happy in life. I do not hate homosexualality, but I still think it is unnatural and should not be taught to children or anyone else that it is normal.
I think you are still off on the race/ gay comparison. Can I on appearances alone determine what race a person is? Yes. Can I determine on appearances alone if a person is gay or not? No. Can I make a guess and be correct a good portion of the time? Maybe. None of those questions matter though because to me, thinking that homosexuality is unnatural doesn’t involve me being able to spot them out of a crowd. It is about all the things I have stated in previous statements.
I do not think that other mammals engaging in gay sex matters to my stance either. I believe it is unnatural not because it doesn’t occur in nature anywhere, but for the above stated reasons. Also, I would guess homosexuality with other mammals sometimes occurs because of a lack of available mates. If these same animals were put in an environment where the opposite sex was the only available, you would probably observe heterosexual behavior. Again, those are only guesses, so I am not going to say that it is necessarily the case. However, I do not think that we should use the observation of animals in nature as a blueprint on how we humans should act. It is also pretty easy to observe animal mothers giving birth to children and then eating their babies. I don’t think that this would prevent me from saying that human mothers eating there children is wrong or unnatural. The same goes for animals killing each other or for animals abandoning their children. I guess I don’t just think that people are another in a long list of animals. I think that we are of a higher order and are above pure, raw animal acts.
I do not have statistics on heterosexual childrearing being better than homosexual childrearing. I am also lazy and think it would be difficult to find these statistics even if they do exist. This is another thing that I am saying as being purely an opinion of mine. I would think that because of the fact that women and men are so different biologically that it would maybe be hard for a woman to teach things the way a man can and vice versa. Because of this, a male/ female parenting combo would be better at teaching a girl than a male/ male combo and a male/female parenting combo would be better at teaching a boy than a female/ female combo. Don’t some of you remember being able to identify more with your parent that was the same sex as you. I may be completely assuming this since it is only something I have noticed in myself and people I am closest friends with. Also, it seems that a lot of people on here think that having straight parents and living in a straight world sometimes confuses a gay child. Well, why can’t the opposite be true. I know that if the children are brought up in a completely open and honest way which explains things then some people believe this would not be the case, but how can the assumption that gay parents would be this way be made. Yes, that was a poorly worded sentence. Sorry. Given the assumption that there are more straights born than gays, wouldn’t it also make sense that if there were more gay parents raising children, there would be more confused children. This may be a stretch, and I am conceding that this is only something I have thought. I have not made up my mind on this at all, but I do think that it is a possibility.
Sometimes I feel that me writing my opinions down rather than speaking with a person can distort things a little. I guess I have a little trouble expressing myself perfectly when writing. However, the more I practice the better I will hopefully get. That is one of the reasons I am on this board, another is to get other people’s viewpoints. If something I say completely sounds crazy then there is a possibility that you read a little too much into it. I believe this might be the case with the previous paragraph. I had a lot of trouble saying exactly what I meant in that paragraph. I guess this is just a little disclaimor.
Perhaps you should take your own advice. You’ve spent this entire thread ignoring what TexasSpur is saying. I find absolutely amazing how deaf people are. TexasSpur says “I’d be disappointed if one of my children were gay, but I’d still love him” and Hastur hears “I’d be disappointed if one of my children were gay, and I wouldn’t still love him”. TexasSpur says “Homosexuals can’t fall in love with someone and have children with them” and Polycarp hears “Homosexuals can’t fall in love with anyone”. Just because one disagrees with someone else, that doesn’t mean that one shouldn’t pay attention to what they’re saying. These knee-jerk responses that are clearly directed towards some straw-man anti-homosexual rather than the individual poster show just who’s the bigot, and it isn’t TexasSpur.
The Gay Guy is checking in, but sees things are all under control. Carry on, lackeys!
(The Gay Guy is, of course, kidding about the “lackey” thing. Really. Please don’t hurt me. Thank you. Could someone please give me the vB code for the small print? Thanks ever so much.)
Without weighing in directly on the “Am I or am I not a bigot?” question, I wanted to point out that there is something about the above that sort of bugs me. As you are clearly a heterosexual yourself, and your religion condemns both premarital sex and homosexuality, you are now telling me that you have decided that the first is okay and the second is unnatural. My question is: Might that conclusion not be a bit self-serving? (I am assuming here that you have or think you might engage in pre-marital sex…If you are insistent that you are not personally going to do it, then I admit this does not apply.)
First of all, TexasSpur, I do not think you are a bigot. However I disagree with you over homosexuality being wrong. You have presented your arguments and are listening to others and carrying on a very well thought out conversation. And the easiest way to quote is to press the little button under each post labelled quote. That can show you the special words that you use to do this later.
I do not share your fundamental assumptions so I do not reach the same conclusion. I personally have no real inclination to be homosexual, but that has not stopped me living with or being great friends with homosexual people (homosexual means both gay and lesbian right?). If you brought up someones homosexuality every time you met them, that would be bigotry, but from your posts I do not think that you do this. Or if you used someones homosexuality for an explanation for their behaviour (in a non-sexual sense, e.g. voting patterns or eating/drinking habits). People can be different in a myriad of ways, and homosexuality is just one of them. Celebrate life, however you find it.
Quick response to TheRyan: No, I did not misread what TexasSpur said. Rather obviously, a same-sex couple is going to be unable to conceive and engender a child without some sort of assistance from the opposite sex. I tried to emphasize that that gay couple, though, can indeed fall in love, and can become blessed with a child either through adoption or through “unnatural” means of conception, not so much because TS needed to have that line drawn – I don’t know whether he recognized that fact or not – but because a random poster or lurker might not have put two and two together to realize that. I try to read what the person writes, and only secondarily to understand the background thinking behind it.
Do you want it taught to them as a disgusting perversion? Or should they just never be told about it at all, further exacerbating the feeling of alienness felt by so many homosexual teenagers?
This may come as a terrible shock to you, but some people would consider biological impotence a blessing.
