Use of the word Bigot

The other day I chanced to meet
An angry man upon the street-
A man of wrath, a man of war,
A man who truculently bore
Over his shoulder, like a lance,
A banner labeled “Tolerance.”

And when I asked him why he strode
Thus scowling down the human road,
Scowling, he answered, "I am he
Who champions total liberty-
Intolerance being, ma’am, a state
No tolerant man can tolerate.

“When I meet rogues,” he cried, “who choose
To cherish oppositional views,
Lady, like this, and in this manner,
I lay about me with this banner
Till they cry mercy, ma’am.” His blows
Rained proudly on prospective foes.

Fearful, I turned and left him there
Still muttering, as he thrashed the air,
“Let the Intolerant beware!”

                  --Phyllis McGinley

http://dictionary.cambridge.org/define.asp?key=bigot*1%2B0

sorry for the messy link but it is the definition of Bigot.

It seems that if you hold unreasonable views (but who is to say what is reasonable?) and refuse to accept other peoples views then you are a bigot.

So its basically saying… I’m right and you’re wrong = Bigot

therefore i don’t think you are a Bigot, TexasSpur, although i don’t agree with your views.

This may be a bit tardy, but wotdehey. I didn’t have time to post it before, and I see hope for this one. Unless he’s already run away. (Life is but a dream…la de da de daah…)
TexasSpur, if you’re still around, I will try to gently explain why people perceive you to be a bigot. I think I understand your point of view and why you don’t feel that you are a bigot. The two perspectives are not necessarily irreconcilable. For the moment, I’m going to take you at your word when you say that you are reasonable and willing to change when appropriate.
First, let me check my understanding of the situation. Please let me know if & where I’m off on any of this. You believe that homosexuality is wrong, but you don’t think that homosexuals should be legally prosecuted. Therefore you don’t feel that you are a bigot, because you are tolerant of homosexuality despite your disapproval of it. (IIRC, upstate NY is a pretty conventional, conservative area - and then you move to Texas! You’re probably a bastion of liberality compared to a lot of the folks you know, eh? :)) You also don’t feel that you are a bigot because you think that the word ‘bigot’ applies (or should apply) only to race-related issues.
OK, on that last point, you are simply mistaken. ‘Bigot’ does not now and never has applied solely to race issues. That is why we have a different word, ‘racist’, for that denotation. ‘Bigot’ may, at one time, have been most commonly used in reference to those issues, but race is not the defining factor. In the 60s & 70s, ‘bigot’ usually meant ‘racist’ because race was THE civil rights issue. Even then, however, the word was used in reference to religious intolerance and other forms of bigotry. Times change - racial minorities are not the only groups demanding their civil rights these days. ‘Bigot’ is not the same as ‘racist’.

Now, after having had that explained to you by several posters, including one who offered an actual dictionary definition that made no reference to race, you still claim that you are not a bigot because “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.”

There’s been another definition provided since your last statement. You stated that you used the definition from dictionary.com. Here are a couple more definitions for you. Please note that no definition offered so far (including yours) restricts the use of the word to race.

So, should everyone just accept your personal definition of ‘bigot’, even though it is demonstrably incorrect, simply because you have an completely unfounded opinion of what “most people” think it means?

Or do you have some sort of proof to back up your assertion that the accepted definition and connotation of the word have changed? If so, I will have to ask for a cite, please. (Hee hee. I knew I’d get to do that someday. ;))

Or are you willing to admit that you are wrong in your definition and that ‘bigotry’ is not confined solely to racism?

Or what?
Please note - I am not saying that you are a bigot. I’m merely debating your usage of the word.
CLUE: this would be a measurement of your avowed willingness to change your stance. If you can not admit to a simple and factual error, then you are not willing to change and further conversation would be pointless. Of course, if you do have some actual proof that you are correct in your definition, you will need to provide it to the board. IME, most posters hereabouts are amazingly willing to accept new data when it is offered, and even to change their positions based upon that new information.

I haven’t responded to this thread because I have been unable to articulate my feelings here. Or perhaps it’s because I cannot resolve them.

Has it come to the point that we cannot express disapproval, or even feel disapproval, without being labeled a bigot? If I have any negative feelings about certain people or beliefs, am I a bigot regardless of how I act on those feelings? There is a long list of things out there I disapprove of, and I don’t think that is ever likely to change quite frankly. I try as best I can to recognize when my feelings may be getting in the way of good sense, and I always make the attempt to be as fair as possible, whatever my feelings may be.

Here’s a f’rinstance: The whole urban/gangsta rap culture turns my stomach. I hate the music, hate the clothes, and hate the phony macho attitude embraced by it. When I see it displayed, by dress, attitude, or the incredibly annoying blaring music at the stoplight, I will always roll my eyes or give a little grunt of disgust. It’s not that I hate these people, but the particular style they’ve embraced. Other similar things exist. I don’t like Bible-thumpers. I have no use at all for white supremacists. I can’t stand ultra-feminists, and I take a very dim view of the far left and the far right.

Here’s one I’ve talked about in another thread: I have a cousin with Downs Syndrome who actually scared and at times disgusted me when I was a kid. He was strong and very unpredictable, and whenever I am around another person with Downs, I feel sort of like I am in the same room with a dog that I am not quite sure won’t bite. Yes, I know this is not right, that they are just people with a genetic condition, the vast majority of which are perfectly able to function socially without violent outbursts or soiling themselves as my cousin did. Nevertheless, that intellectual knowledge doesn’t alleviate my essential feelings of distrust.

In none of these cases would I ever try to enact any legal discrimination against these people. I don’t seek them out to tell them of my disapproval. I am perfectly willing to let them be what they are. Am I, then, a bigot? If so, why? And how possible is it that anyone is not? We all have things we simply cannot abide or that bother us. If I am not, then why is TexasSpur, who has expressed his disapproval yet believes in equal rights? (To be fair, I leaned toward the idea that TS was not a bigot until the “I don’t want them teaching it to my kids in school comment,” which pushed me towards the other direction.)

TexasSpur: First off, as has already been pointed out, a bigot is not necessarily a racist, although all racists are by definition bigots. Hating someone because of their religion, gender, sexual orientation, nationality, mental or physical compentance, or political philosophy are all forms of bigotry.

Are YOU a bigot? That’s hard to say. Societal perceptions of homosexuality are in serious flux right now. Only a few years ago, your views would have been thought to be dangerously liberal. Now, you’re being equated with the KKK. However, I don’t buy this “poor me” act you’re putting on for Hastur and Polycarp. In your OP, you call homosexuals “wrong and unnatural,” and then pretend to be the underdog when they reply in kind. Considering the rhetoric of true homophobes, you should hardly be surprised when “I think homosexuality is wrong and unnatural,” is recevied as “I hate homosexuals.”

You claim you’re not a bigot because, even though you don’t like homosexuality, you don’t think homosexuals should be discriminated against. However, you also say, “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.” Sorry, but I don’t see anyway to read this except as a very bigoted statement. You say that the idea that homosexuality is normal should not be taught to “children OR ANYONE ELSE.” So you’re saying that if someone feels that homosexuality IS normal, they should not be allowed to try to convince others of their beliefs. By your own definition of the word, this is bigotry.

You claim you are against discrimination against gays, yet you are also against teaching children that homosexuality is “normal.” I think it is self-evident that if children are not taught that homosexuality is OK, or worse, if they ae taught that it is “unnatural and wrong,” then you are simply going to have more violence and discrimination towards gays. On top of that, how is a teacher supposed to react if some kid whose just figuring out about his sexuality comes to him for guidance? “Well, Kyle, homosexuality is unnatural and wrong. But don’t worry, I don’t hold it against you.”

As for gay parents, last I’d heard on the subject, there were no studies on the effects of same-sex households on children, partly due to a lack of subjects. Until very recently, most gays had been unable to try parenting due to biology, prejudice in the courts and adoption agencies, and the comparetivly primitive nature of artificial insemination procedures. There has been a study showing that children from two parent households fare better than parents from single parent households, but as far as I know, gender of the parents didn’t play a roll in the study at all. All this study showed was that raising a kid is too time-consuming for one person to do it effectivly.

Finally, and this may be a bit off topic, but I can’t let your definition of “The meaning of life” go by withou comment. I don’t like children. They’re messy, noisy, and ignorant. You have to put up with the damn things for close to twenty years before they become really interesting. The last thing I want is to spend two decades of my life beholden to a bunch of unwashed yard-apes without enough sense not to stick a fork in a wall socket. Despite this, I lead a rich and meaningful life. How? Because I don’t think, contrary to popular opinion here in the states, that children are the be-all and end-all of human exsistence. Frankly, with global population tipping the scales at more than six billion, the last thing we need on this planet is more people. Texas, you’re confusing what’s most important in YOUR life (ie, your kids) with what’s most important in EVERYBODIES’ life, which is going to vary dramatically. Just 'cause we have different goals doesn’t make one of us wrong. Or unnatural.

The problem I have with your opinion on this, Tex, is that however much you might think your views are fair, if everybody felt the way you do, intolerance, discrimination, and violence towards gays would inevitably increase. I don’t think that you are a bigot, Texas. But I think you have some bigoted views. That’s okay. Like I was always taught, “Hate the sin, but love the sinner.”

There are pro-gay groups and there are anti-gay groups. Both are the extremes. There are many people that belong to neither of the two groups.

When do I become a “bigot”? When I don’t belong to a pro-sexual preference group? When I have no opinion on the issue or consider it irrelevant? When I don’t “have a problem with” people of varying sexual orientation? When I think that sexual preference is nothing to be “proud of”? Or does it have have to involve a specific group, rather than these general questions?

I don’t see homosexuality as something entirely natural, isn’t it assumed to be a function of genetics and learned behavior (to varying degrees depending on the individual)?
And anything learned is not “natural.” I do not a have a good understanding of calculus because nature some how bestowed it upon me, understanding calculus is not a natural thing.

I have friends and relatives who are gay. Adults can have sex with whomever will consent to it. It’s none of business what people do in their bedrooms. I support gay marriages and equal custodial rights. I’m not a “bigot.”

Well, genetics is about as natural as anything gets. As far as learned behavior goes, how can you say that any learned behavior is necessarily unnatural? Plenty of animals teach specific behaviors to their young, yet you don’t hear Marlin Perkins talking about unnatural hunting strategies. (Then again, you don’t hear much of anything form Marlin these days, so I fear I have dated myself somewhat!)

In any case, the prevailing assumption says gentics plus environment, but not “learned behavior.”

What exactly is a “pro-gay group”? I’m not aware of any serious group that advocates that people should be gay preferentially to being straight. Is it “pro-gay” to not deny full personhood to people who, for whatever reason, prefer to have consensual sexual relations with other persons of the same sex who have similiar urges? To me, that sounds like a pretty neutral stance: let people do what they want as long as they don’t hurt anyone. I wouldn’t label a philosophy of equality and tolerance as “pro-gay”.

I have seen nothing to suggest that homosexuality is “learned” (although certainly some of the stereotypical behaviors associated with, e.g., gay men are learnable, whether or not you’re gay). It’s not a “choice”, either.