My late great-grandfather was already in his nineties before someone in the family came out (me). For over nine decades, all he had heard about 'homosexuals' was that they were an aberration, an abomination, sinners, hell-bound, and all the rest.

We all know that KNOWING someone gay helps to soften those views,, and in time replace them with better views. But at the age of 93, There wasn't much time left to him to get to know the true me (take into account it took ME three years to come to terms with my sexuality).

That doesn't mean that my late great-grandfather was a bigot. He was a mild-mannered, understanding gentleman, full of love. When his wife became ill with Parkinson's, he took it upon himself to nurse her. And but for the last three months of her life, he managed it, even though he was 92 by the end. He prayed for all his children, grandchildren and great-grandchildren every day (inasmuch as he could still remember all their names). The closest thing to a present-day example of how gay-friendly he could have been would be his eldest son, my grandfather.

My grandfather is no bigot either. He always asks me to bring my boyfriend along. Like later this month, when we'll be celebrating his 89th birthday with him and his new wife. He asked me, his gay grandson, to be one of the four witness signatories of the marriage contract. I'm sure that if the boyfriend and I ever decide to get married, my grandfather will gladly attend (especially when there is a church ceremony involved; he likes that!).

My great-grandfather went to his grave in February 2002. There just hadn't been enough time for him to acquaint himself with the issue of homosexuality. He opposed it by convention, not out of hate. But his heart was in the right place. He wasn't a bigot - he was a closeted ally. If only he had lived to be 109...

I'm not calling your grand father or great grand father anything so lets not get off on that. The question was---- and I answered it as I see it

Have a good afternoon

I think the conditions often coexist.

It's perfectly possible to love someone and know they are a wonderful person, but still recognize they have blind spots that make them less than perfect on certain subjects.

You don't have to love your great-grandfather less even if you acknowledge that on the issue of same-sex marriage he was a bigot. You understand the context of that bigotry, the limited opportunities he had to learn better, and you suspect that he might -- with sufficient time -- have sloughed off that bigotry.

Understanding doesn't negate the bigotry in that one area, but that's okay. Being a bigot on some topics doesn't mean your entire heart is black with hate for humanity. It doesn't make you the anti-Christ. It just means you're a flawed human being.

Yes, well: I guess we are all sinners in one way or another.

And may be well forgiven for it, thank God.

I don't see this as a matter of "sin". In fact, I don't think I'd call him a sinner even if I believed in that concept and in your god.

To me, sin is the commission of an act you know to be wrong, but you do it anyway. In the case of this man's great-grandfather, there was no recognition that his opposition to marriage equality was wrong. Quite the contrary, he thought his perspective was the correct one. Given his overall character, which seemed to be good, this particular bigotry of his was borne of ignorance, not sin.

sin is regarded as ANYTHING opposed to God's will. Even when that opposition is unwittingly commissioned, it is still a sin in word, though or deed. But it may be forgiven "for God sees the heart".

Christian-Reformed Churches have a very strict definition of sin and forgiveness. But in that strictness, there is a potential for great humility and gentleness: when all is potentially a sin, it serves no purpose to cower in a corner and hope to commission none, so just go out and make the best of the life and talents God gave you. All is potentially good when all is potentially sinful. My great-grandfather had a very evocative and practical approach to theology.

(Hence my words - I am still a Calvinist at heart.)

It is STILL a bigoted position. That doesn't mean that he didnt have other fine qualties. My Dad died opposing gay marriage. He was a white man born in the deep south in 1929. He struggled with prejudice all his life. He got over hus racism (mostly), he was respectful of women, and supported the first women firefighters in his department in the 70's. He learned to accept homosexuality, and even had an openly gay friend, but gay marriage was a bridge too far for him.

We talked about it a lot, and he understood that he opposing a right that affected him not in the let, but he couldnt let go of that a last bit of bigotry.

We live in our times. I'd say just accept that your grandad has his weaknesses, and more on.

despite some people's claim to the contrary.

There is not one rational argument against gay marriage. I can (and do) disagree with people on a wide range of issues. However, not matter how wrong they are, I will admit there are rational arguments against my position. But on gay marriage? Nope, not one rational reason to oppose it.

Things change a lot in 10 years.

(There were also people in 2006 here who backed Lieberman over Lamont in the primary.)

And anyone who claims otherwise because of doctrine, "religious freedom" or other such nonsense is a bigot as well.

There are merely rationalizations for a clearly bigoted position.

You can be a victim and a bigot, I guess.

You can be a victim of your upbringing, I guess.

But you have to accept your responsibility that regardless of how you got that way, if you are that way, you are a bigot.

period

But I suppose there are still small numbers of people who have simply been misinformed, and are too young and too sheltered to have gotten away from those who are trying to teach them hate.

Being a bigot sure seems to make one adamantly opposed to same sex marriage.

in the sense of qualifying someone as, rather than in the sense of compelling someone to be some way.

people who are opposed to same sex marriage. There are bigots who support same sex marriage. They could, for example, be extreme individualist anarchists who view same sex marriage as equivalent to marrying a hamster and equally none of their business. That would make them bigots and homophobes of the first order, but not opposed to same sex marriage.

Is there anyone here willing to defend the claim that it doesn't?

but in other places, there are without a doubt people who would.

If homosexuality is immoral, as some believe, then they're obligated to oppose it.

that gave a couple, regardless of the genders of the two people involved, the legal protections of couple-hood would have been the easier way to go since it would remove the wind from the sails who were claiming the "marriage is a religious ceremony." I guess I was trying to look at it as strictly a matter of nuance in those days and wasn't empathizing with those involved. I don't know if that would make me a former bigot.

Is that there are 1,300+ federal laws that confer benefits based on marriage and use the word "married." To gain equality, you would need to rewrite all those laws. That just isn't going to happen.

Could change all that by simply stating that all government documents and legislation using the word marriage is now redefined to mean civil unions.

However, they were able to set up their laws, and their societal views, to treat that civil contract as we treat a "marriage".

As a result, most people in France today get the "civil contract" version. Even the heterosexuals. Only the devout get the "civil contract" and a marriage.

In a perfectly logical US, the civil contract approach would work and would even fix problems like atheists having to find a minister. However, our country is far from logical and has a long history of "separate but equal" not working.

are what the government is primarily granting in sanctioning and legalizing a union between two people, same-sex couples are also looking to have their unions regarded as of the same status in the eyes of society, a less practical, but still important thing. Having the unions of heterosexual couples sanctioned as "marriages" and those of same-sex couples as "civil unions" fails to reach that level. Granted, some segments of society will never regard them equally, which is a bigoted shame, but the government should.

I'm against ALL marriages.

I think there's an interesting discussion to be had on what marriage even means anymore in today's world. The whole institution seems more and more (to me) like a relic of the past.

Marriage is....and has always been a legal contract about property.Just because religions also used to be governments and made up some love-er-ly ceremonies to go with doesn't change that.

And now you can do prenuptial agreements which vary what the domestic relations law would provide. It creates financial and property entanglement.

Are you against two people committing to each other for a lifetime?

if the odds were 50-50 it was going to crash.

And a poor attempt at deflection. Saying why YOU wouldn't do something is not an explanation for why you would oppose allowing anyone else to do it.

Your reluctance to take a firm position on the issue is duly noted.

To be fair I would oppose anyone else getting on an airplane that had a 50-50 chance of crashing. I'm against all human suffering.

Unless you think that marriage, even if it ends in divorce, is nothing but suffering.

People suffer when their spouse dies, too, and that's pretty much a 100% chance. Even if no one ever had an unhappy marriage that ended in divorce, I assume you'd still oppose any and all marriage because of that suffering?

recommend flying because it is very safe.

I have nothing against relationships. It is the legal part I appose.

Why? I am curious why you'd not want that.

negotiated before they are co-mingled. Divorce leads to a war over material items based on blame for profit. The one with the best lawyer wins. It divides families and friends. You don't feel it is too easy to get married and too hard to end it?

I'm for a legal agreement not based on marriage law.

you broke up the partnership. It made it simple for me as I did not have to pay a lawyer to write it up. There was nothing there about blame, only division of assets. Perhaps other states have different statutes but that was what that one said.

What do you mean "marriage law"? Thanks, I am always interested in reading about other states, not sure what you mean here by this term as you used it.

"Divorce leads to a war over material items based on blame for profit..."

Post hoc ergo prompter hoc. The comforting ally of the myopic and dogmatic.

question of original post..because of one thing, something else follows.

And you know that, since I already addressed it in post 10.

Sad that your apologetics leads you to such transparent obfuscation, but it seems to be all you have.

... so it's a bit different than a plane crash.

We know it is as likely to be broken as to be an actual lifetime.

Remember that controversial sitcom that had the people say "for as long as we both shall love?" But at least that was honest, because I think that's what most people who get married today really mean.

"When I date a man, I always ask, is this the kind of guy I'd want my children to spend every other week end with".

not discriminate against LGBT people. So if I ask 'Should the military be allowed to discriminate' the answer 'I don't think there should be a military' is simply evasive of the question being asked.

Let me ask you this way. Do you believe it is proper to deny to a minority group a practice allowed to the majority even if you yourself don't care for the practice?

I wonder why.

To why the government needs a military, but I can't make an argument as to why government needs to sanction a religious ceremony.

Is it bigoted that most religions don't recognize same sex marriage? The answer is yes.

Note, atheists get married every day in the US, sans religion.
Also, you are not being asked to rationalize the need for a military or for marriage. This is the question again, give it another shot, it's very clear and simple:

Do you believe it is proper to deny to a minority group a practice allowed to the majority even if you yourself don't care for the practice?

I'll point out yet again that your opinion of the practice is irrelevant and offering it is an act of evasion.

a "civil contract", then what's the difference between a civil union and marriage if the civil union offers the exact same protections and benefits as what you perceive to be marriage?

However, if someone opposed all marriages equally, I'd say 'no'.

Please, a person of good will can object to the institution of marriage and still demand equal right for all people. As an very explicit example: I am fundamentally opposed to the the institution of adoption as it is practiced today, yet I demand that LGBTQ are treated equally under the law in their ability to adopt. Its really that easy, treating others with respect.

I specifically stated that the person in my example would oppose ALL marriages equally.

Being adamantly opposed to same-sex marriage is the result of someone being a bigot, and they are probably bigoted about several other things besides. It's a mindset problem.

Not thinking or knowing you're a bigot doesn't MAKE you not a bigot.

sex marriage a few years ago. People use the term "bigot" way too often these days.

if he changed his mind so easily, now could he?

Now it has become "bigotry" - I'm not buying it.

the fact that bigotry was socially acceptable does not magically make it unbigoted.

[font style="font-family:'Georgia','Baskerville Old Face','Helvetica',fantasy;" size=4 color=teal]It almost like he a politician or something [/font]

I'd like to hope most people are mature enough not to structure their ideals around any one person.

But he did not really oppose it.

This bigotry business is getting complicated.

And yeah, pretty much, he lied to appeal to bigots when it was still socially acceptable to do so, definitely a bad mark on his record for me.

I find his claim to have "changed his mind" completely disingenuous, but that's the sort of thing politicians have to do, sadly.

Hell, his denomination was AFAIK the first one in the US to solemnize gay marriages, decades ago.

But having adopted a "bigoted position" back then, that would have made him a bigot, at least publicly. I don't think he was a bigot then or now.

You voted no. Obama doesn't get an exception. Nor does the pope if you oppose marriage equality you are a bigot. The vast majority here agree.

Opposing marriage equality is wrong and homophobic. Thinking that all marriage should be a "private" matter is a bigoted system that leaves the discrimination up to private parties.

Opposing non-discrimination laws against LGBT people also makes a person a bigot.

I think "ignorant," and "insecure" first.

or what I call them TURD MAGGOTs.

My mom is opposed. I think she's "got issues". It is hard for me to call her a bigot.

My sister doesn't thing LGBTQ people should have children. I think she's homophobic. Ironically, her step-son is gay and a full member of the family, as is his husband. Maybe she has changed her mind over time. I don't know.

Bigot is a very ugly word. It's hard for me to explain. It is a word I reserve for people who feel deep hatred for someone else because of something they are.

My mother doesn't feel hatred. My sister doesn't feel hatred. I think of them as twisted, and I think of their views as wrong. Not even sure why I use the word "homophobic" since they are not "afraid". They just "have issues".

I am coming to terms with the fact that I also have issues. I think kids should have two parents. Now, I'm okay if the parents don't live together, as long as both are active in the child's life, and preferably both live close by. And I don't care about their gender. But I want there to be TWO. And so, I have an issue with single parents. Does that make me a bigot? I don't think of myself that way, but I guess, to single parents, I am.

and one spouse dies, do you think the child should be taken away from that "single parent" and given to another couple, so that they can grow up with two parents?

If not, then I guess it's not clear what your 'issue' is.

But I feel that that parent will have a more challenging experience, and the child will miss out on having two parents.

Disgust then?

That they are "sinners" then?

Very judgmental.... like they are better somehow.... A superior example of mankind. With the things hetero couples so to kids all the time, why are they a better choice for children?


Sounds a little hate-y.....

*I* just have a hard time with the word "bigot".

No, there is no disgust, there is no "sin". No "hate". Those are very strong words.

I think you can dislike something without hating it. But others probably see the world in a more binary fashion. Or, at least like, hate or don't care/think about it.

At any rate, if you feel the need to call my family members "bigots", go ahead. I just can't do it.

Then what is there to object to?

I'm guessing that with my sister, she thinks that a gay couple will not be able to teach how to deal with the opposite gender or nuances of a gender that they are not. I know a lesbian couple with sons went out of their way to introduce other men into their sons' lives.

Often with single parents, moms try to get the dads active in a son's life because they are concerned about aspects of manhood that they cannot teach. Similarly, some dads are squeamish about the aspects of womanhood that their daughters experience and try to find a woman for the daughters to talk to.

So, there it is. It's not disgust or sin. It's a hope that a child has a strong sense of gender identity, and a belief that living in a house with someone of that gender makes a difference.

I also believe that an opposite, two parent home has lots of merits, if the couple is loving toward each other and the children, and not "dysfunctional". But who is that lucky these days! So, I accept that there are many different ways to raise children. All I ask is that they are loved, protected from harm and taught a strong set of ethics that they will follow in their daily lives.

toward the biases in your own family or far too unforgiving of biases in others. I am sure that you understand that every single form of bigot says they don't hate, they are not judging, blah, blah, blah. Rare as hell is the human bigot who says 'I hate them, I am a bigot' what they say is 'I love them, but....' and they also say 'God' and 'for their own good' and 'I don't think those people can.....'

I know this about myself.

My sister's stepson's husband walked down the aisle as one of the groomsmen in my niece's wedding. My sister doesn't "hate" him. But she doesn't think he should have children. Since I have a similar bias about single parents, I decided not to argue about it. I don't like arguing with my sister.

I have always been comfortable calling my mom homophobic, and I think I've called her homophobic to her face. But there's just something really ugly about "bigot", so I can't use that word toward her.

I think the bottom line is that I think of a bigot as violently and vehemently opposed. The kind who would start a conversation with "those fuckin' XXXX's" (gays, blacks, Jews, etc.). The kind who would cheer when Matthew Sharpe got dragged by a truck or when Walter Scott got shot in the back.

I think if you look at my posts, you will not see the word "bigot". Guess I just learned something about myself.

So.....

are the only bigots against blacks the ones who lynch them?

Are people who just won't rent them an apartment, or who don't like them being admitted to some school, or who are aghast their children have black friends or lovers just Negrophobes?




I'm not trying to be difficult, and I understand completely your reluctance to call your Mother or Sister a bigot. And your ideas about the word are not uncommon. I suppose, like we have degrees of murder and degrees of rape, there is a kind of scale of bigoted behavior. but, y'know..... think about it. Bigotry-Lite is still bigotry.

I called her a racist to her face.

She told me it wasn't like that, that she was concerned about difficulties we would have in society. My best friend at the time was biracial, and his parents did NOT get along, to put it kindly, so she may have based her prejudice on that. Over time, especially after I actually did bring home girls of various different races, did she admit she was wrong, but I still viewed her as racist until then.

I was raised by a single parent. Why? Because my non-custodial parent put her addictions ahead of her kids. I was ABSOLUTELY better off with one stable parent. If my dad has stuck by mom waiting for her to pull it together? I shudder to think. She still hasn't got her shit together, fyi.

So was my dad supposed to let my mom's drug problem ruin all of our lives or was he supposed to order us a step-mom from the Sears catalog or make us wards of the state or what?

For the record what he DID do was suck it up, get a divorce, buy a little house on the edge of a good school district and scrape by. We came out okay, and he's the reason why.

So on his behalf, I heartily encourage you to find a warm, dark place where your ignorant opinion of single parents belongs.

But I was raised by two loving parents. Who lived apart.

However, I know that this is a personal bias. I think it stems from my view of teenaged girls and young women who find themselves pregnant, and decide to keep the child, but look around to everyone else to help them raise it. Having been one of the people who was supposed to cough up funds for this madness, I resent it, and it spills over.

By sharing this bias, I realize that it makes me an "ugly person" in your eyes. Go ahead and pound me. At some point, I will learn to confine my "bigotry" toward the small subset of single mothers who, in my mind, have no business being parents. And yes, I know it's bigotry. I own it, and I don't think it's going to go away.

Tell me more, this is FASCINATING.

no printable comment .

It comes from some people who want to make a strong statement, and they exaggerate to make their point.

I've always been perplexed by that. I started off arguing with him about it, but I started to feel rude, so I stopped.

a reason why he felt that way?

I had just stated that OF COURSE gay people should be allowed to marry in a group setting and he touched my arm and said very sincerely and quietly to me. ...
"Oh, no, (my name), marriage is for a man and a woman" Kind of almost admonishing me, but in a nice way. ... like he was correcting me gently.
And I kind of froze and felt the urge to argue come up, but then was overcome by the feeling that preaching my opinions to him would be rude somehow.

And it probably seems like he was being sarcastic, but he wasn't. He really, sincerely felt that way. I think he may have been religious?

This happened like 15 years ago and I'm still confused by it.

Some earlier generations of gay folks are sad that our community is losing some of the aspects that made it a community separate from the mainstream. To them, marrying is something that straight people do. Older generations of gay people suffered a great deal of discrimination, and some of them turned inward to their community and embraced being outsiders. To them, us younger gay folk getting married means that we are capitulating to a boring mainstream values system.

[font style="font-family:'Georgia','Baskerville Old Face','Helvetica',fantasy;" size=4 color=teal]How is telling someone what they can or can not do because of your views on marriage not be bigoted.

That said, I know who you are addressing this to. I can't wait to see his response to this [/font]

They may be opposed to the marriage contract in general, and same-sex marriage is a subset of marriage.

Semantics, yes, but it's a dumb question to begin with.

that marriage between a man and a woman is fine and honorable, but that same-sex marriage shouldn't be allowed under any circumstances or in any form?

Last edited Fri Jun 12, 2015, 03:07 PM - Edit history (1)

I did not say "same-sex marriage" when I really meant "same-sex and heterosexual marriage". I should have thought that would be obvious from the paucity of people trying actively to prevent heterosexual couples from being legally married, but apparently it wasn't obvious enough.

It's also against T.O.S. Don't believe me? ask the one's the were NUKED that didn't.

Questions like that are pretty straight-forward, no pun intended.

Last edited Fri Jun 12, 2015, 01:54 PM - Edit history (1)

So are the answers.