Am I a bigot?

Fear -- I agree. People are afraid something that's always been "theirs" is being co-opted and taken away from them. I don't think that Christians in this country "own" the term "marriage". It's almost arrogant to assume and think that anyone can own a title like that.

originally posted by: EternalSolace
a reply to: Benevolent Heretic

Ok, I'll be more accurate. If all 50 states adopted civil unions and opened them for all, and the president signed an executive order extending federal benefits to civil unions, would that be enough?


I understand where you're coming from on calling it the same thing if they're equal. You have one side of the group whom want to maintain the integrity of marriage being between a man and a woman. You have another side that wants to take that from one group and open it up for gay marriage.

Does what I propose not offer a middle ground to both sides if it's really about the benefits of marriage?

That civil union thing was tried in Canada and failed miserably because it still causes a discriminatory distinction between one group of human beings and another.

It's not a middle ground.

It's a feeble attempt at disguising unjustified societal divisions.

If you think you might be a bigot or someone close things that you might be a bigot, you probably are.

a reply to: CharlieSpeirs

I can't get my head around this one too well.

If you call out a bigot for being a bigot you are bigoted against bigots?

If you call out a misogynist for being a misogynist you are bigoted against misogynist?

If you call out a racist for being a racist you are bigoted against racists?

Is that right? Dammit I hate being confused.

originally posted by: EternalSolace
If tomorrow the president signed an executive order that extended civil union to all, across all fifty states, and expanded its benefits to the federal level... would that be enough?

You don't go backwards.

a reply to: MystikMushroom

If people are fearful of changes and what the long-term impact gay marriages might have on a society, take a closer look at countries that have it set in place.

Canada has had gay marriage (not civil unions) for 10 years now... the sky hasn't fallen, society hasn't been shredded to pieces, people are still having babies, citizens continue to live their lives exactly the same way, and the gods haven't burnt us to the ground.

a reply to: CranialSponge

Sure, but look at what happened to your bacon, eh.

a reply to: ~Lucidity

I can't get my head around this one too well.

If you call out a bigot for being a bigot you are bigoted against bigots?

If you call out a misogynist for being a misogynist you are bigoted against misogynist?

If you call out a racist for being a racist you are bigoted against racists?

Is that right? Dammit I hate being confused.

Lol, this sounds like logic loop you would use to destroy a robot in a movie

a reply to: American-philosopher

I know what a bigot is. You're not one of them.

As a sidebar, this thread is a perfect example of why we need a polling option. The first thing I thought of when reading this was...........This question needs a poll.

a reply to: Sremmos80

I know. My circuits are totally fried!

a reply to: beezzer

Sure, but look at what happened to your bacon, eh.

I can't help it if you're jealous that our round bacon fits better in an english muffin !

Don't hate us cause we're beautiful.

originally posted by: queenofswords
My only problem is that more studies should be done on a wider scale and over a long period of time regarding children that are adopted by same sex couples. If legal marriage is allowed unhindered, then you cannot deny gay couples the same opportunities to adopt. I know they can give those kids love and nurturing, but there is a psychological component that needs to be addressed and studied for straight children reared by gay couples.

There have been many studies. Here's one: World's Largest Study on Same-sex Parents Finds Kids are Healthier and Happier Than Peers.

Of course, adoption is an entirely different subject, but if people's concern is about the children, then there are MANY areas that should be addressed before going after couples who have to go through all kinds of red tape to even adopt a wanted child into a loving home. I mean, we have homeless and hungry children, abused, unwanted and neglected children. Don't you agree that there are more pressing issues as regards the children?

originally posted by: EternalSolace
Ok, I'll be more accurate. If all 50 states adopted civil unions and opened them for all, and the president signed an executive order extending federal benefits to civil unions, would that be enough?

The fact that you ask "would it be enough" already shows that it's "less than". When speaking of equality, anything less than full and complete equality is not "enough".

I understand where you're coming from on calling it the same thing if they're equal. You have one side of the group whom want to maintain the integrity of marriage being between a man and a woman.

How does that "maintain integrity"? What does that even mean? Marriage equality is the law in 37 states. Gay people are getting married right and left. Is the integrity of marriage lost because of this? Has YOUR marriage changed? Marriage will still be between a man and a woman, if that's what they choose. My marriage is between a man and a woman. It hasn't changed.

You have another side that wants to take that from one group and open it up for gay marriage.

No one wants to take anything away from anyone. Men and women are still marrying daily.

Does what I propose not offer a middle ground to both sides if it's really about the benefits of marriage?

Yes. If everything you say would happen, it would be a compromise. But many would be against it from the "separate but equal" position. The Supreme Court, for one. Cranial Sponge said it best. www.abovetopsecret.com...

a reply to: Benevolent Heretic

From that study

the survey followed 315 same-sex couples, mostly lesbians, and their 500 children, using a variety of standardized measures to compare their health and well-being to the general Australian population.

Mostly female same-sex parents were involved. More indepth studies and studies done over longer periods of time should be carried out first, imo. As I said, once marriage is allowed by law, you cannot discriminate when it comes to adoption.

originally posted by: queenofswords
More indepth studies and studies done over longer periods of time should be carried out first, imo.

How can you carry out more in-depth studies if gay people aren't permitted to marry and adopt?

As I said, once marriage is allowed by law, you cannot discriminate when it comes to adoption.

Agreed. And there's no justification for continued discrimination.

a reply to: ~Lucidity

Pretty much.


Because it's an intolerance to their opinion, no matter how heinous their opinion actually is.



These levels to bigotry, from low such as being bigoted against bigots...
& extreme bigotry such as the premise of the OP...

Are why it's a catch all, pointless one at that...


We have other labels for specific bigotry that seperate the bigots (low & extreme)...

Such as racist, sexist & more aptly for this discussion...
Homophobe.

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

Marriage is between a man and a woman and it has been that way in some arrangement since male met female.

Not so, The ancients and early Christian church's only stopped performing gay marriages in 342 AD

These same-sex unions continued until Christianity became the official religion of the Roman Empire. A law in the Theodosian Code (C. Th. 9.7.3) was issued in 342 AD by the Christian emperors Constantius II and Constans, which prohibited same-sex marriage in ancient Rome and ordered that those who were so married were to be executed. [5]

source

a reply to: queenofswords


Given that there are many heterosexual couples who are useless parents, perhaps they should do studies on them as well, before letting them have kids/adopt....?

originally posted by: ketsuko
Marriage is between a man and a woman and it has been that way in some arrangement since male met female

Damn, I get SO fed up with having to explain the reality to people who claim this.

You're wrong, completely and utterly wrong.

What you're thinking about is a specific form of marriage, specific to your religious beliefs, time period and geographical location.

Christianity DID NOT INVENT marriage, it does not own it, it never has and never will.
No religion on this planet owns marriage, and marriage has not always been the way Christians currently like to claim.

Your notion of "traditional marriage" applies only to your country, your religion, your chosen period of time. Marriage has existed for as long as Humans have existed, and not in the same format or only between one man and one woman.

Why do modern Christians think they have a patent on marriage?
Why do they think the rest of their society MUST adhere to their specific notions of what marriage is?
Why do they deem it their job to enforce their specific notion of marriage onto the rest of society?

The Pagans of Europe accepted same sex marriage long before Christianity was invented (by man), as did the Native Americans before the white man came with his delusions of authority and righteousness.

Your notion of "traditional marriage" is your own manufactured model, marriage belongs to no one.

I just have a couple of observations I would like to throw into the pot.

1. Separate has never -EVER- been equal. This is an impossibility in a human-administered world.

2. Marriage existed long before Jesus Christ walked in Canaan, therefore it cannot be solely a Christian custom.

3. Round bacon is still bacon.

4. The best bunny is a chocolate bunny. Get yours today!

Examine your soul (or your naval, whichever).

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

I'm where you are on my beliefs. Give them the same legal benefits, but marriage isn't a right for anybody.

Marriage is between a man and a woman and it has been that way in some arrangement since male met female. Trying to equate it miscegenation is false because a black man and a white women (or the inverse) is still a man and a woman.

Now they can call their relationship whatever they want, but don't force me to call it a marriage and don't force my participation. I won't disagree or tell you otherwise in polite company the same way I don't run around telling the world that I think homosexual sex is a sin. I don't run around telling the world that sex out of wedlock is a sin either, but guess what ... it is and if you ask that's what I'd say. Same with divorce unless you are being beaten or abused.

And bigotry very much is a two-way street. Your friend might want to consider that.

Marriage didn't even exist until around 10,000 years ago. Marriage is a property contract and always has been under the law.