Am I a bigot?

definitions of the word Bigot

1. a person who is utterly intolerant of any differing creed, belief, or opinion.

2. a person who strongly and unfairly dislikes other people, ideas, etc. : a bigoted person; especially : a person who hates or refuses to accept the members of a particular group (such as a racial or religious group)

3. One who is narrrowly or intolerantly devoted to his or her opinions and prejudices. This word is a general term that applies to everyone (racists, anti-Semites, misogynists, homophobes and xenophobes).

The "right" is spelled out in the 14th amendment. And that is the right to equal treatment under the law. That is most definitely a right. If a state offers a contractual agreement to adults, it violates the constitution to exclude a certain group of adults from participating in it.

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: greencmp

I'd say you are comparing apples to oranges here. You are a person and a union is a labor organization. It falls under different rules and guidelines by the nature of it not being human.

So, AARP should be able to commit acts of violence against opponents of the social security administration?

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: American-philosopher

As long as you get government benefits (ex: tax breaks) from being married, it isn't a privilege. It's a right. Decouple marriage from the government and then maybe we can talk, but for now all need to be included.

Though restricting privileges is just as bigoted as restricting rights. Why should something as simple as who you love restrict you from a privilege?

I would also point out that government did not actually get into the marriage game in order to validate anyone's love.

The government has no interest in love as love does nothing to advance the best interests of the state. The reason why the state started interfering in marriage was because marriages are usually the best generators of a growing, stable, productive future tax base.

By that, I mean that married couples generally are your best bet of raising your future as a state. Kids do best with their original, biological parents. Studies confirm this and the state conferred those privileges as a means of hopefully encouraging their married couples to procreate and raise lots of successful future tax payers. Thus increasing the strength of the state.

Explain to me how this applies as well to gay couples.

a reply to: grey580

Good point! thank you. haha I should have pulled out the dictionary on her.

originally posted by: American-philosopher
right I get so frustrated when I hear that argument that a white and black couple is the same as a same sex couple when there are obvious difference's.

How is it different? Religious people used the SAME arguments to prevent interracial marriage.

a reply to: American-philosopher

You are not a bigot
you are a big foot

originally posted by: American-philosopher
now are you prepared to have a discussion about a title??

then if so were talking about something that fits the parameters for said title.

What is marriage, then?

originally posted by: Benevolent Heretic

originally posted by: American-philosopher
right I get so frustrated when I hear that argument that a white and black couple is the same as a same sex couple when there are obvious difference's.

How is it different? Religious people used the SAME arguments to prevent interracial marriage.

Really? So we argued that the black man and white woman were the same gender? And then we said, "God and then Jesus said marriage is between a man and a woman."

Then I guess everyone is a bigot in some form.



Especially people who call people bigots.


Seeing as it takes someone of an intolerant viewpoint to label someone a bigot...
They become a bigot themselves...




I don't agree with a ban or hinderance on same sex marriage though.


Love, is no ones business.

a reply to: blupblup

how am I prejudiced against gay couples. I am not trying to stop them from being together or doing whatever they want.

originally posted by: ketsuko
Really? So we argued that the black man and white woman were the same gender? And then we said, "God and then Jesus said marriage is between a man and a woman."

Who gives a crap what God or Jesus said? And they literally did not say that - some guys may have wrote it down a few hundred years later and made some stuff up, sure.

Also Marriage pre-dates christianity and was really about tying two families together for financial gain, nothing to do with love or procreation.

originally posted by: ketsuko
Kids do best with their original, biological parents.

Then we'd better outlaw adoption, divorce, remarriage, marriage of old people who cannot have children and marriage without children, like mine.

But until then, gay couples provide loving, wonderful homes for adoptive kids.

originally posted by: Benevolent Heretic
The "right" is spelled out in the 14th amendment. And that is the right to equal treatment under the law. That is most definitely a right. If a state offers a contractual agreement to adults, it violates the constitution to exclude a certain group of adults from participating in it.

Your 'right' is to equal protection under the law, a negative right, not the benefits or services afforded by any law, a positive right.

Negative and positive rights

a reply to: CharlieSpeirs

I know.

I confess.

I'm bigoted towards ignorant intolerant racists.

Can't help myself.

a reply to: Borisbanger

Do you know me. I really do have big feet though haha.

originally posted by: ketsuko
And then we said, "God and then Jesus said marriage is between a man and a woman."

If marriage were a religious institution, you might have a point. But legal marriage is a secular, state contract. It doesn't matter what your God said.

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

how am I prejudiced against gay couples. I am not trying to stop them from being together or doing whatever they want.

You've already said you'd vote against it, therefore being prejudiced
It's not difficult.

You're friend was right, you're a bigot.

originally posted by: blupblup

originally posted by: ketsuko
Really? So we argued that the black man and white woman were the same gender? And then we said, "God and then Jesus said marriage is between a man and a woman."

Who gives a crap what God or Jesus said? And they literally did not say that - some guys may have wrote it down a few hundred years later and made some stuff up, sure.

Also Marriage pre-dates christianity and was really about tying two families together for financial gain, nothing to do with love or procreation.

In every teaching that refers to marriage, both refer only to man and women. In teaching that refers to sexual sin and perversion, homosexual sex features fairly regularly.

It is therefore, safe to conclude that marriage is for a man and woman and the reason for that is because they were made for each other - man and woman. This is pretty evident throughout nature when it comes to creatures that reproduce sexually.

originally posted by: blupblup

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

how am I prejudiced against gay couples. I am not trying to stop them from being together or doing whatever they want.

You've already said you'd vote against it, therefore being prejudiced
It's not difficult.

You're friend was right, you're a bigot.

So if I'd vote against murder and rape, am I prejudiced against them too?