Am I a bigot?

a reply to: AnuTyr

If it's ok for straight people to do show affection in public then it's ok for a gay couple and if a straight relationship is not a sport then neither is a gay one. The only difference is the gender. People make a big deal about nothing.

originally posted by: BestinShow
a reply to: American-philosopher

So what does everybody think am I a bigot for not voting to pass same sex marriage?

Yes, you are...

But what's the use in pointing that out since you don't know what the working definition of a bigot is..?

some homosexual marriage supporters also fit the definition of bigots

big·ot
ˈbiɡət/
noun
noun: bigot; plural noun: bigots

a person who is intolerant toward those holding different opinions.

...but you'll probably be mad I pointed this out...

originally posted by: CharlieSpeirs
What happens if a Gay man wants to marry a Lesbian woman?


Paradox eh!

To be fair... I'm a lesbian trapped in a man's body

originally posted by: queenofswords
We need unbiased factual studies long-term before we can be sure children are not psychologically harmed by this. This is the only issue that concerns me. I am always about children first. That is not discrimination.

If you're more concerned about children raised by gay couples than you are about children raised by straight couples (or single parents, grandparents, divorced parents) then it IS discrimination. If you study children raised by gay couples and don't include children raised by straight people, then it IS discrimination.

a reply to: berenike

I agree with your post 100%. We are free to have doubts, fears, suspicion, dislike and even hatred for other people. None of us is perfect. I've been called racist and bigoted, too. I blow it off. I'm not perfect and I was raised in a sheltered environment where I wasn't exposed to people who were different. Interestingly, I grew up to stand up for the rights of those who are different from me. Funny how that worked out.

originally posted by: jonnywhite
Marriage should be tied to procreation or children. Otherwise, it's a meaningless title IMHO.

You are certainly entitled to your opinion and your definition of the word "marriage", but I can't help but take just a tiny bit of offense at your blanket statement. I assure you, my childless marriage of 23 years is not "meaningless". Nor is "marriage" a title to me. It's a word that I have defined for myself and my situation, and it means a WHOLE lot to me. It represents the love I have for my husband and the vows and commitment we share, the work we've done and the joy we experience with each other. "Meaningless" is not a word I would use in connection with "marriage".

a reply to: Deaf Alien

You are right. Religious intolerance DOES harm those kids more than anything else.

Brilliantly stated.

Religious training itself harms kids - in lots of ways.

THIS @ queenofswords:

I am a specialist in Children & Families - I am qualified to do a 'study' if I cared to. I could even submit it to a peer-reviewed journal if I chose to. The irony is that if there was a "psychological study" done, and it confirmed that gay parenting is every bit as COMPETENT -- OR INCOMPETENT -- as hetero parenting, or single parenting, or extended family parenting, the haters would chew their way through the woodwork to declare that 'the mental health industry' is to blame - because we are all screwed-up quacks and drug-pushers, you know, who don't know a damn thing about what's 'best for the kids'.

Sometimes I can't stand humanity. If I had my way (which I don't, and never will, and I'm too tired to "be the world's mother" anyway) - RELIGION would be regulated just like alcohol and tobacco -
a person must be 18 to enter a church. Any parent caught taking their child to church should be investigated - just like if they raise their kid at a bar, or in a meth-lab, or send them to 2nd grade with crack in their pockets.

Religion is for ADULTS. Children should not be subjected to it at all until, say, middle-school, and then taught about ALL religions, without bias "for or against" any of them.

This is slightly off-topic, though. Back on topic - I don't think the OP is a bigot - I think s/he is in the process of soul-searching and establishing truths about his/her inner self. Which is fine.

ANY parent can blow it - and lots of them do! Funny how rarely we see any headlines about 'gay parent' sexually abuses or beats or starves or locks up or kills their kid. Nono.....but we sure do hear horror stories every day about some local trash abusing/kidnapping/vanishing/maiming/sexually assaulting their kids.

There is not ONE family on earth that isn't dysfunctional in some way or other. EVERYONE makes mistakes. Unfortunately kids aren't air-dropped with an "owners manual" - and I would far rather require a license - a FEDERAL license to become a parent than to give a rip what consenting adults do in their private times. It disgusts me to think about it, too - so I don't.
But for two loving people to want a child, and are shown 'qualified' to PARENT well, then let them raise the kid that no one else wanted. Good for them.

So - am I a bigot? Yes - against religious indoctrination of children.
Teach them cultural competency and tolerance, kindness and awareness of the lifestyles of others - without judgment.

KEEP GOD OUT OF SCHOOLS AND COURTROOMS.

Here's another little tidbit of info - the superintendent of the public school district in my county is a LESBIAN. The superintendent!! Should she be fired for being homosexual?
She has improved our 'failing' district quite a bit - I worked under her at an alternative school for behaviorally/emotionally disturbed kids (you know - the kind that are from dysfunctional families with crap parents who psychologically harmed them).

She was the principal. Now's she's the super - and our county has improved immensely under her educational leadership.

So - take that! (oh yeah, and this is in Kansas, by the way!) Oh SNAP.

originally posted by: greencmp

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: EternalSolace

Can you answer my question since the OP won't. Forget about the benefits for a second. What is wrong with saying a man and a man are married or a woman and a woman is married? Why does that matter anyways?

OK, I will say it.

Procreation and the legal construct to assure the woman that he can't just dump her when she gets too old which was the norm when the legal institution was added to the religious one after Henry VIII.

The catholics handled it with hellfire.

Procreation is a sorry reason. Children are born out of wedlock all the time and not all hetereosexual couples have children either. Seeing as how single motherhood is on the rise in this country, marriage isn't being used to keep men from dumping their woman.

Your answer here is just Middle Ages justification for marriage. It's a bit outdated. Plus Europe didn't invent marriage. Their definition isn't the definitive one.

originally posted by: flammadraco

originally posted by: greencmp

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: ketsuko

Regardless of the government's original intentions as far as marriage goes this is where we stand now. To be honest, it was Christians themselves who got marriage intertwined with government. Funnily enough it is Christians who are the ones trying to change it when they don't like where government is going with it.

Spot on.

You were right in the first place, the state shouldn't be involved except if there is a contract dispute in civil court.

In the same way that religious folk should not be involved if two tax paying adults want to get married!

Exactly.

a reply to: BuzzyWigs

Well said!

Can't give you a flag, so I'll give you Picard!

a reply to: flammadraco

Well, thank you. I very much appreciate the support. I know there are lots of members who think I am just a hysterical left-wing, bleeding heart, lily-livered socialist commie.....

but I know what I know; and I KNOW what bad parenting and religious indoctrination can do to kids.

originally posted by: Krazysh0t

originally posted by: greencmp

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: EternalSolace

Can you answer my question since the OP won't. Forget about the benefits for a second. What is wrong with saying a man and a man are married or a woman and a woman is married? Why does that matter anyways?

OK, I will say it.

Procreation and the legal construct to assure the woman that he can't just dump her when she gets too old which was the norm when the legal institution was added to the religious one after Henry VIII.

The catholics handled it with hellfire.

Procreation is a sorry reason. Children are born out of wedlock all the time and not all hetereosexual couples have children either. Seeing as how single motherhood is on the rise in this country, marriage isn't being used to keep men from dumping their woman.

Your answer here is just Middle Ages justification for marriage. It's a bit outdated. Plus Europe didn't invent marriage. Their definition isn't the definitive one.

I was just answering the question of where the legal institution of marriage originated and why it mattered.

Henry VIII was the one who was responsible for creating divorce.

I am a little surprised that no one has asked me about my comment about spousal privilege and why it is the actual reason why a national civil union is not likely to be called a "marriage".