If a person has stated on several occasions that marriage is between a man and a woman,

is that person a homophobe?

Is there a set of circumstances under which that person would not be considered bigoted toward gays?

as a whole i see it as ignorance. like so much that is happening on both left and right. i see it can as easily be conditioning and that is not something out of principal or religious belief, just an idea that has never been or allowed to be challenged.

towards gays.

My sister tells me all the time that she has nothing against 'the gays'. She just doesn't think 'we' should 'allow' 'them' to get married. It isn't God's plan, you see.


Her language shows that while she is not consciously homophobic, secretly she is. And that results in her bigoted behavior using God as cover.

Funny though, he is fine with seafood, working on Sundays, clothes made from different fibers, different crops growing side by side, shaving, the death penalty, etc., etc.

term "the Christians".

She got it. Took a bit of thought on her part, but she got it.

on another forum because I'm so damn sick and offended when I see the term "gay lifestyle"

Thanks for taking time from your busy schedule at the WH to post on DU.

Ignorance is no excuse for bigotry.

Just put race in instead of orientation and you have your answer.

If a person stated on several occasions that marriage is between two white people, is that person a racist?
Is there a set of circumstances under which that person would not be considered bigoted towards non-whites?

Sad thing it that Loving v. Virginia was not all that long ago.

Equal is not the right word. The two struggles have different people, in different times, fighting for different issues.

However, both struggles involve oppressed minorities who have sought to overcome social stigma and both de facto and de jure discrimination within society so that they may participate within society to the fullest extent possible. The two struggles are analogous.

because I can't imagine anything good coming from you.

Many people are waiting for your explanation.

The poster must be looking desperately around the internets for something that will make sense.

Google
Google
Google

Google
Google
Google

DRATS!

Sorry for the confusion, I must not have taken my meds today.

They never can help themselves. They just burst out with it when they can't stand it any longer.

The difference between "is" and "should".

I'm a black male and I happen to support same sex marriage, but don't you dare compare the gay struggle to the civil rights struggles of the 60s. We should support gay marriage because gay marriage doesn't harm anyone.

Or is it the old "OMG buttsecks is nothing like my skin color" canard?

But you know damned well it hasn't been proven yet. If you can link me to studies proving it CONCLUSIVELY then I'll be glad to re-examine my stance on the analogy being inappropriate.

by the thought of your existence being the same as a gay person. I'll await proof otherwise.

If you're asking me if I think that my existence is the same as a gay person, I don't. My existence as a black man is much more difficult. Ever have a problem catching a cab because of your sexual orientation? Didn't think so.

and I'm too poor for cabs.

You're right. Matthew Shepherd wasn't just an isolated incident in Wyoming. Thousands of gay people have been lynched on fenceposts across the country. You know why people know his name? Because of how comparatively rare it is for people to turn their homophobia into murder.

Please, do some internet searches.

Cabbie Tossed 2 Guys From Taxi Because, Inevitably, They Would've Had Sex

So why did that NYC taxi driver Medhat Mohamed throw out a couple of gay passengers in Harlem? Because he was concerned that, after seeing them hugging, he was going to have to watch them have sex in the backseat!
"I wanted to pay attention to getting them to their destination instead of worrying if they were going to have sex or not," says Mohamed of passenger Paul Bruno and the male fella he shared a hug with in the backseat en route to a birthday party. "They kept hugging and kissing. He was almost sitting on his lap. And I said, 'OK, guys, come on, I'm driving.'"



http://www.queerty.com/cabbie-tossed-2-guys-from-taxi-b...

then it seems that it would also be okay for the Dallas apartment complex to refuse to rent to Muslims. JUST going on a hunch here, but I'm guessing that Medhat Mohamed is a follower of Islam.

I think you need to check your "internet GPS" because you have ended up in the wrong place!

I am simply stating that Muslims (one of the most homophobic religions in the world) shouldn't be surprised to find that sometimes the shoe is put on the other foot, and that people don't like them very much either.

Most religions have a history of rancid homophobia, including my own. By your own standards, then you shouldn't be surprised when a gay cabbie doesn't pick you up because you "shouldn't be surprised to find that sometimes the shoe is put on the other foot, and that people don't like" you very much either. Do you see how that statement is BIGOTED? Do you also see how it is passive acceptance of bigotry?

You need a class in logic. If white person A punches black person B- and I comment that person B probably doesn't like person A very much, does that make me a bigot? Of course not. You might have a point in that it's passive acceptance of bigotry, but unless you've got a giant megaphone and lots of money, you'll never change people's beliefs on things like race and sexual orientation. You have to wait for them to die.

Most of your arguments are nothing if not logical fallacies, poor conclusions, and inability to stay on topic.

"If white person A punches black person B- and I comment that person B probably doesn't like person A very much, does that make me a bigot? "

That doesn't even make sense.

Does not make sense?

Let's say you're a landlord in Dallas, Texas, and you have Muslim families that want to rent from you. You remember some Muslim people dancing in the streets on 9/11 and you remember the Muslims that attacked U.S. troops as well as other Muslims in Iraq. You impute these actions to all of Islam.

You remember polls like this:

http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSN2244293620070522

You refuse to rent to the Muslim families.

Then in a different story, you have a Muslim cabbie that kicks two gays out of his cab because of their sexual orientation.

I, as an observer, comment that Muslims shouldn't be surprised to find out that they might not be a very popular ethnic group in America at present. This makes me a bigot how? For stating a fact? Look at polls.

You do realize not renting to an individual Muslim family because "some Muslim people dancing in the streets on 9/11 and you remember the Muslims that attacked U.S. troops as well as other Muslims in Iraq. You impute these actions to all of Islam" is bigoted, right?!

But I didn't make those statements. I was telling a hypothetical story to explain the landlord's actions in Dallas.

...despite the fact they CHOSE their religion, popular or not.

discriminate against people on the basis of religion if they choose to.

Did Barry Goldwater support bigotry simply by voting against the Civil Rights Act? If you answer yes, then our conversation is pointless and I'm ending it.

If you answer no, that his vote against that legislation, in and of itself, did not constitute support for bigotry, then we can continue. My argument is that freedom of association with regard to religion should extend to public accommodations. I see no need for the protections of the Civil Rights Act to extend to religion as they do currently.

The conversation is done. You support a form of bigotry. I see no need to continue a discussion with someone who supports a various form of bigotry. However, points for being so open about it, that is an usual quality here; most try to hide it.

and I'll take their word over yours as they have first hand experience with being a member of both minorities and you do not.

If you did believe we are born gay, then there would be no need for CONCLUSIVE proof. Your stating that would be needed before you re-examined the appropriateness of the analogy suggests you don't think sexual orientation is innate. Furthermore, should it matter? The struggle for civil rights will always be different for different groups, but it is still a struggle. So, does it matter if the trait is "in born" or "chosen?"

Are you kidding? If it is conclusively proven that people choose to be gay, then they should not be extended employment discrimination protection, for example. It would be considered a lifestyle choice. Would it be fair to force employers to hire someone who could change who they are in an instant? I do think that most of the victories gay rights groups have won over the years have been because people agree that homosexuality is most likely innate and has a genetic origin. I do believe that sexual orientation is innate.

And if it is chosen then it is definitely not comparable to race.

We know "religion" is not innate, 'then they should not be extended employment discrimination protection, for example. It would be considered a lifestyle choice. Would it be fair to force employers to hire someone who could change who they are in an instant?"

I realize that it is also a religion, but they deserve the same civil rights protections extended to any race because of their unique history as an ethnic group. They are not considered to be a religion by many fringe groups, but rather to be a race. Even if a born Jew converts to Christianity, they will still face discrimination from some for having a Jewish surname or looking Jewish or whatever. If you're asking me if I think that it would be okay to fire someone for being a Baptist, for example, I would say yes. The Baptist sect of Protestantism is absolutely a religion with no racial aspects to it whatsoever.

He CHOSE to be a Jew.

"If you're asking me if I think that it would be okay to fire someone for being a Baptist, I would say yes. "

You basically think some types of bigotry are acceptable. Do you also think it acceptable that a Dallas aptarment complex will not rent to Muslims?

Is religion not a choice?

Ironic anecdote coming from you, Aegis. You get up in arms about a Dallas apartment complex not renting to Muslims yet you have no qualms about supporting an apartheid regime that kills hundreds a year. Interesting.

But, changing the subject away from your addmission of "acceptable forms of bigotry" is very interesting. Supportive of certain types of bigotry and a propagandist, why do I not find that surprising?

I simply said that I don't think civil rights protections should extend to RELIGION because RELIGION, unlike RACE, is a choice. People on here constantly make anti-Christian comments, and I'm sure that some would discriminate against Christians if given the chance. That should be their right. Would I discriminate against someone because of their religion? No. But the line between access to accommodations and freedom of association is a blurred one.

You've told me that I don't have the requisite knowledge to debate you on I/P. You don't have the requisite knowledge to debate me on pharmacy or law.

You stated it again.

"You don't have the requisite knowledge to debate me on pharmacy or law."

Which is irrelevant as it is not the topic of the discussion nor is it something I alluded to in my remarks to you whilst trying to change the subject.

Do you understand how fine the line is between civil rights and property rights? Look at the Boy Scouts case and the constitutional issue of freedom of association if you don't understand me on the grave importance of this.

It is illegal to discriminate against renting to someone on a number of conditions, some are innate, others are not. The Boy Scouts has nothing to do with "property" rights and is a further example of you confusing the situation with strawmen and other locial fallacies.

I am arguing that perhaps religion should not be one of the protected discrimination classes. What are some of the other protected classes? Race, sex, national origin, age, color, handicap... are any of these choices?

No, but sex, age, and disabilities can change and one of your statements indicated why should a group be protected on something it can change. However, Familial status and Veteran status are choices.

Veteran status should stay-for public policy reasons. The other non-choices should also obviously stay.

ETA: When you come back next time, you might want to use the moniker "AF Napoleon." (AF = Animal Farm)

Same tired shit, too! You'd think they'd get new talking points. I think I may just c'n'p my responses...saves my hands for other things.

Idle hands are the D_vil's plaything.

I wonder whose little sockpuppet it is.

The one who keeps coming back? dolphindance, etc?

Talk about unproductive and divisive.

I think this is a usenet troll that attacked ruggerson awhile back.

My father grew up in Alabama and remembers how a couple of the most racist folks in his town would likely be members of HRC today. So whatever.

I grew up in DC in the late 80s and early 90s with a non-pale skin color.

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

nt

I can not see any evidence that the person is afraid of gays.

This person does abhor the concepts of equal rights and equal access under the law.

The same way those opposed to equalty for others groups, including in relation to marriage were also bigots. It's not "different" because its gays and it's certainly not "different" because dems are doing it along side the pukes.

Either you believe in equality or you do not. Either you have the courage to state your true feelings or you are a coward.

Bigots or cowards, one or the other. Both are shameful.

But it a lot more likely that they are both homophobic and bigoted towards gays.

You can never be sure of a person's underlying motives\beliefs

However, it dismays me deeply to hear these kind of things come from Barack Obama and most of our administration officials.

The fact is that "traditional American marriage" hasn't been the way marriage worked throughout human history. Maybe such a person supports a "compromise" like Washington State's Referendum 71 that gave same-sex couples all equal rights of heterosexual married couples but just did not call the union marriage.

I'm not saying this is your thinking, because I can't really discern whether you agree with the position or not.

Every one in this country deserves EQUAL rights, not watered down rights. It sure would be nice to hear this from the President. Who knows? Maybe he could change a few minds in the country, and maybe right here on DU!

I admit that I used to subscribe to the "marriage is strictly between a man and a woman" message. Now after doing some soul- and researching, I have yet to hear a really really good, non-religious reason why gay couples shouldn't get married other than "my religion doesn't allow it" or "it's immoral" or "eww" or "marriage is strictly between a man and a woman".

If you were looking for reasons to not support it and couldn't find any. I guess your position of supporting gay marriage as long as you continue to not find any good reasons not to support it is good enough for now, for some of us.

The word is sexual orientation.

or if they're born that way. I conclude the FCL synapses are present at birth.

not born Christian or Jewish or Muslim etc. Please do not call something that is hardwired into us biologically a 'lifestyle'. That's as stupid as going around asking people why they chose the hetro lifestyle.

but realize that a person can be open to marriage between same sex couples and still be bigoted toward gays.

For example, its okay if they get married but I don't want them in my neighborhood or school or.....

And lie about their true feelings for various reasons.

Take that congressman in California. He lied to advance his political career. He behaved in a bigoted way. Is he bigoted against himself? No, just a fraud and a coward.

are frauds and cowards?

I must agree with you there.

and one of the hardest things you can ever do is get them to change an opinion, especially a stupid opinion.

They're our traditionalists, people who think that since something was so in grandpappy's day, it ought to remain so now.

as well. Generational bigotry is still bigotry. Holding a stupid opinion about a group of people in the face of fact is the very definition of prejudice.

The semantics are killing us. Let EVERYBODY, straight or gay, have to have a certificate of civil union to establish who their choice of next of kin, partner in property and decider of medical issues in times when they are incapable of such and let those who choose to be 'married' in a church do so in whatever church accepts their commitment. The civil union will be performed by a magistrate and the non-binding religious ceremony can either be performed or not afterward. Religious people can have marriage and the rest of us can have the rights.

I am an atheist and have been 'married' for 25 years. My commitment to my husband and our relationship will not be any less if it is called a civil union and that term is probably a lot more accurate.

The people against Equality will not stop being against it because they change the name. They will be AGAINST anything they makes THEM equal to those they dislike and feel superior to.

I hate that argument every time I hear it. Just because I'm not religious and didn't get married in a church, I'm not married? Bullshit. And I'm not going to extend that mentality to appease the bigots, either. Screw them. They aren't going to get their way. We're winning the fight as it is, one state at at time.

just because of a bunch of bigots. You want to give in, I guess that's your prerogative. But I'm not, and I"m going to stand with those who are fighting for that right. It's not semantics. It's civil rights.

That "changed the definition of marriage" too. What's so objectionable about the gays that we need to scrap the entire concept of marriage?

The problem is that certain religions (or misguided interpretations of certain religions) have convinced people that our state institution of marriage is really just a religious institution (despite the fact that even among many straight people it is not religious institution at all). These hate mongers are so blinded that they cannot see that they are depriving honest, tax-paying Americans of equal treatment under the law.

It is shameful.

Can you find another reason for someone to stand against gay marriage? Many thousands of gays are already married. Has it hurt anything? Has someone gotten sick? Died? Got Divorced because gays are married? The institution of marriage is a fucking joke already, how many "family values" candidates have been caught with hookers? Mistresses? With secret gay lifestyles? How many marriages end in divorce?
Can anyone come up with a single fucking VALID reason gays shouldn't be allowed to marry? Fuck no. They can't. Which leaves us homophobia.

If they say "marriage is between a man and a woman" they could be merely stating the law as it stands in their state. In the same way an anti-abortion advocate might say "abortion is legal in the United States." Both statements refer to facts and not opinions.

However, if the statement was "Marriage SHOULD be between a man and a woman", that is an opinion. In that case you might be better justified in trying to figure out whether they are a homophobe.

In the same vein, saying something like "Women make less salary than men" or "Blacks are less welcome in some organizations than whites" doesn't necessarily make the speaker a sexist or a racist. The key is whether they are stating a fact or whether they are saying that's they way things should be.

I think a lot of people just don't really think about it. They dislike change, which is perfectly natural, and tend to find comfort in the way things have always been. I'd label some of them "morally incurious." Aside from the obvious, rabid homophobe I'd say the true test comes when it hits home for them. When they discover someone they care about is affected. When they're forced to think about it and come to a decision.

Should GLBT folks have the same rights as everyone else? Yes, without hesitation. Who needs to think about whether or not equality is 'right'?

and a bigot. And I don't think he is. I think he just lacks the political courage to tell everyone his real opinion. And this is to me one of the most disappointing aspects of his administration.

and Yes, Obama has said, and done some homophobic things and some not so phobic things, At best he is a liar.

What's the difference, in the end?

I think that he believes in his heart that gays should be allowed full marriage rights. But again, to put it bluntly, he is afraid of losing the votes of homophobic bigots on this issue, so he pretends to believe that marriage is only between a man and a woman. Of course, all politicians lie sometimes, but this is a particularly disappointing one.

Of course he believes in gay marriage, I would say to myself. But nowdays I do not believe he is on our side. First he used his faith as an excuse for his bigotry. Then came Donnie McClurkin - seriously? Next up: Rick Warren. Now he's waffling on DADT. I think he's just a bigot, plain and simple.

and his alleged 'faith' as fodder to sell that lie. He says he is against equal rights because of his religion. I have family members of the same religion who are offended at being so described, but that is what he says. So you claim he is a craven liar?

And I prefer to assume that he is a liar.

Regardless of the basis, he is clearly terrified of homosexuals.

Religion is a choice--not an excuse.