toldailytopic: Gay-marriage ban is ruled unconstitutional.

[PureX]

I'm not suggesting you're being bigoted by pointing out bigotry. I'm suggesting your definition of bigotry applies more firmly to you than to the vast majority of those you would apply it to.

You can go and sharpen up your definition of bigotry, if you like.

Yeah, that's a common ploy. When one can't actually refute an assertion that they don't like, they simply shout, "Nut-uh, YOU are!"

 

[Iconoclast]

When we hold negative ideas and beliefs about a group of people we don't know, that's called bigotry. When this bigotry is based on race, it's called racial bigotry, or 'racism' for short. An example of racial bigotry would be the belief that black people are not as intelligent as people of other races. That they tend to be lazy, sexually promiscuous, and more inclined toward immoral and/or criminal behavior.

When these kinds of bigoted beliefs include a desire to oppress, restrain, punish, or otherwise harm the people they are being applied to because of their negativity, then it becomes a hateful expression of that bigotry. For example, the desire to deliberately oppress black people because one believes they are especially ignorant, lazy, promiscuous, immoral, and given to criminal behavior, is an expression of, and would rightly be referred to as 'racial hatred'. The idea, for example, that we would need a special law forbidding a black man to associate with white girls, unsupervised, because we fear he would not be able to control his lust, would be an expression of racial hatred.

The current bigotry being held and expressed toward homosexuals is no different than the racial bigotry of the past except that it's based on a person's sexual orientation rather than on one's skin color. Just as with racial bigotry, it's based on falsely held negative ideas and beliefs about a whole group of people that the bigot doesn't actually know. The belief that homosexuals are inordinately immoral, promiscuous, disease-ridden (or at least disease-prone), anti-social, and even criminal, are examples of contemporary bigotry against homosexuals. Homosexuals are no more immoral, promiscuous, diseased, anti-social or criminal than anyone else is in our society, just as black people are no more ignorant, lazy, promiscuous, immoral, or criminal than people of any other race, are. Yet these bigoted beliefs persist, nevertheless.

And when this sexual bigotry finds expression in a desire to oppress, restrain, punish, or otherwise harm homosexuals, it becomes a form of hatred. The fact that the bigot believes that a homosexual can choose not to be homosexual and a black person cannot choose not to be black, has nothing to do with anything. The bigotry is in thinking that homosexuals are inherently bad, not in whether or not one can choose to be homosexual or not. And the hatred is in the desire to harm homosexuals for being homosexuals, not in whether or not they can choose not to be what the bigot believes them to be.

Reading this, the bigots and haters will, of course, try to defend their hateful beliefs using facts which they imagine apply to all homosexuals, and on conclusions they imagine to be based on what's good and necessary for the health of society. But this is no different than the racial bigots and haters of years past who also argued with their facts about how dark-skinned people really are less intelligent, more promiscuous, morally weak, and given to criminal behavior than people of other color skin, and so for the good and safety of society, needed be legally and socially more intensely restrained.

But these facts will have been 'cherry-picked' by the bigot to support the negative beliefs they already hold, and when they're presented with facts that contradict their bigotry, these will be ignored, denied, and refuted in favor of the bigots beliefs. And it's exactly this defensiveness, rather than a balanced, logical, and open-minded reaction, that gives the bigotry away. Bigots believe as they do because they want their negative beliefs to be true. And so they will defend these beliefs whenever they're challenged, rather than re-examine them as a reasonable, unbiased, person would do.

Really what it comes down to is that you are not allowed for any reason, whatsoever, to oppose those who NEED to socially identify themselves by their sexual/psychological inversion. To allow opposition to this behavior means that the very foundations, of these individuals emotional stability can be challenged. This is unacceptable to those who have chosen due to their mental instabilty to socially identify by this mental state (GLBT).

They (GLBT crowd) know that if you accept or they can get society to accept their the premise that they have the right to be this then they will eventually win on every front that they choose to fight on.

They are winning and will win the battles but eventually loose the war. Jesus Wins...!!

 

[PureX]

Really what it comes down to is that you are not allowed for any reason, whatsoever, to oppose those who NEED to socially identify themselves by their sexual/psychological inversion. To allow opposition to this behavior means that the very foundations, of these individuals emotional stability can be challenged. This is unacceptable to those who have chosen due to their mental instabilty to socially identify by this mental state (GLBT).

They (GLBT crowd) know that if you accept or they can get society to accept their the premise that they have the right to be this then they will eventually win on every front that they choose to fight on.

They are winning and will win the battles but eventually loose the war. Jesus Wins...!!

It's amazing that you would presume be able to phsyco-alylize an entire group of people like that without having actually met any of them! Doesn't the fact that you actually imagine that you can do this give you any pause for skepticism?

 

[MaryContrary]

Yeah, that's a common ploy. When one can't actually refute an assertion that they don't like, they simply shout, "Nut-uh, YOU are!"

Irony abounds.

It's amazing that you would presume be able to phsyco-alylize an entire group of people like that without having actually met any of them! Doesn't the fact that you actually imagine that you can do this give you any pause for skepticism?

And abounds...

 

[PureX]

Irony abounds.And abounds...

That tire just keeps on losing air, girl.

 

[Sum1sGruj]

You're being more bigoted with this statement than anyone here has been toward homosexuals. By far.

Not that I agree with him, but at least he doesn't give into public appeal for 'brownie points' :idunno:
Some could learn a thing or two from that example.

 

[MaryContrary]

Not that I agree with him, but at least he doesn't give into public appeal for 'brownie points' :idunno:
Some could learn a thing or two from that example.

Excuse me? If you're going to accuse me of something, man up and say it plain.

 

[Sum1sGruj]

When we hold negative ideas and beliefs about a group of people we don't know, that's called bigotry.

You have to look at it like this, PureX. The Bible doesn't condemn race, but it does condemn homosexuality. Elijah, for example, was of a certain persuasion, and he is one the main Prophets in the Bible.
It is certain that God does not look at one's race for the sheer sake of racism. And if He does, then He is not God and we have nothing to fear.

But homosexuality is condemned to the extent of execution in the OT, and those who commit such acts are barred from the Kingdom in the NT.
There is obviously a reason for this if one is to believe God's morals are true and absolute. To say that it is harmless, at least to a degree that we should allow it is to say that God is unfounded in His dismissal of such people.

 

[PureX]

You have to look at it like this, PureX. The Bible doesn't condemn race, but it does condemn homosexuality. Elijah, for example, was of a certain persuasion, and he is one the main Prophets in the Bible.
It is certain that God does not look at one's race for the sheer sake of racism. And if He does, then He is not God and we have nothing to fear.

But homosexuality is condemned to the extent of execution in the OT, and those who commit such acts are barred from the Kingdom in the NT.
There is obviously a reason for this if one is to believe God's morals are true and absolute. To say that it is harmless, at least to a degree that we should allow it is to say that God is unfounded in His dismissal of such people.

I understand that this is your belief. But why should other people have to be held to your beliefs, when your beliefs would slander and condemn them? And especially, why should other people have to suffer because you believe as you do?

I can't think of any reason why they should have to. And so I'm happy to see the courts finally find the courage to defend those people from your beliefs, and from your desire to cause them hardship.

 

[Sum1sGruj]

I understand that this is your belief. But why should other people have to be held to your beliefs, when your beliefs would slander and condemn them? And especially, why should other people have to suffer because you believe as you do?

I can't think of any reason why they should have to. And so I'm happy to see the courts finally find the courage to defend those people from your beliefs, and from your desire to cause them hardship.

It's no coincidence that scientists have failed to acquire an involuntary, biological reason for homosexuality. It seems to be nothing more then a product of otherwise irrelevant psychological ordeals.
God is righteous, and therefore doe snot condemn on account of something which cannot be helped. Homosexuality can be helped. In the same way alcoholism is legal, so is homosexuality. But to allow homosexual marriage would be to put a discount express lane specifically for alcoholics at a liquor store.

This is a Christian society. It may be tainted beyond recognition in many parts, but marriage has been a Christian thing and so why should we allow them to get married? For the sake of legality? That is a worldly affair, one that Christians should not allow into the sacred objects of Christendom. There is no purpose of homosexuals getting married except to one-up such sanctity.

 

[PureX]

It's no coincidence that scientists have failed to acquire an involuntary, biological reason for homosexuality. It seems to be nothing more then a product of otherwise irrelevant psychological ordeals.
God is righteous, and therefore doe snot condemn on account of something which cannot be helped. Homosexuality can be helped. In the same way alcoholism is legal, so is homosexuality. But to allow homosexual marriage would be to put a discount express lane specifically for alcoholics at a liquor store.

This is a Christian society. It may be tainted beyond recognition in many parts, but marriage has been a Christian thing and so why should we allow them to get married? For the sake of legality? That is a worldly affair, one that Christians should not allow into the sacred objects of Christendom. There is no purpose of homosexuals getting married except to one-up such sanctity.

Those are all the same silly objections that racists used in years past. They, too, feared an express lane to social chaos and immorality and all that. But it was nonsense. And it still is.

Heterosexuals are sinners, just as are homosexuals. But the heterosexuals somehow imagine their sins are less offensive, and so they should have the right to marry, while homosexual's sins are so heinous that they must be denied that same right. It's an irrational bias. It's bigotry hiding behind an illusion of righteousness. And it's slowly being exposed for what it is.

 

[Angel4Truth]

It's amazing that you would presume be able to phsyco-alylize an entire group of people like that without having actually met any of them! Doesn't the fact that you actually imagine that you can do this give you any pause for skepticism?

Its amazing to me that you cant see that what you just complained about is what you do and have done all through this thread.

 

[Angel4Truth]

:doh:

You're being more bigoted with this statement than anyone here has been toward homosexuals. By far.

I can't believe you even wrote this without realizing that.

Do you hold negative ideas and beliefs about those that oppose homosexuality?
I'm seeing that right here in this post. Seen it elsewhere even more strongly.

Do you have a desire to oppress, restrain, punish, or otherwise harm them?
Apparently. You certainly want them to shut up about it, at the least. Pretty sure you've expressed more forceful desires elsewhere, too.

Do you defend your beliefs (right here in this post), using facts which you imagine apply to all who oppose homosexuality, and on conclusions you imagine to be based on what's good and necessary for the health of society?
Yup. There it is.

I imagine, having been confronted with this, that you'll ignore, deny, and refute it favor of your beliefs about those who oppose homosexuality.

"Yur a bigot!" is a very easy card to play. It's good that you're in the game, don't get me wrong. I'm glad you're at the table, taking the time to hash these things over. But if you're going to just assume from the start that everyone who opposes homosexuality is a hateful bigot, and defend that belief all throughout this discussion, despite any evidence to the contrary, then you are certainly being far more bigoted than the worst anti-homo bigot around here.

There's another component to bigotry that you failed to mention. Every behavior has a reward. Bigotry likewise. It allows one to feel superior to those inferior people you're bigoted toward. That's why bigotry is typically defended so zealously. Do you feel superior to those that oppose homosexuality? Know better than they do? See yourself as defending society from those dangerous folks? Ignore, deny, reject any evidence to the contrary?

Because, well... :idunno:

Exceptional post

 

[Sum1sGruj]

Those are all the same silly objections that racists used in years past. They, too, feared an express lane to social chaos and immorality and all that. But it was nonsense. And it still is.

Heterosexuals are sinners, just as are homosexuals. But the heterosexuals somehow imagine their sins are less offensive, and so they should have the right to marry, while homosexual's sins are so heinous that they must be denied that same right. It's an irrational bias. It's bigotry hiding behind an illusion of righteousness. And it's slowly being exposed for what it is.

But homosexuality is a shameless lifestyle of sin. How exactly does a homosexual in marriage even hope to not be condemned?

Christians are irrational giving way to such things. In all reality, you may as well say it's biased and offensive to say alcoholics should stay away from liquor stores.
I keep that example connected to homosexuality because homosexuality is due to gluttony. One over-indulges in sexual thoughts, and soon enough, they find their selves in a muck of deviance.

What being exposed is the overly soft hearts of naive minds. The very people who even began this intrusion of morals were not Christian, but were no doubt trying to pillage Christian morals. It is now simply being a part of this 'free world' revolution, not even having much to do with morals. It's just masqueraded that way in an attempt to make others feel as if there is something wrong with them. For Christians to sit there and let the world influence how they should feel about God's morals is the explicit work of the events in Eden.

 

[PureX]

Its amazing to me that you cant see that what you just complained about is what you do and have done all through this thread.

It's amazing to me that people actually imagine that the "Nut-uh, YOU are!" response has any meaning or merit whatever.

 

[PureX]

But homosexuality is a shameless lifestyle of sin.

Sin is sin. And you are not here to control other people, or punish them for their sins. We are all the same before God, and we all deserve to be treated that way. Christians aren't any better than anyone else just because they're Christians, and heterosexuals aren't any better than anyone else just because they're heterosexual. And presuming that we are better than others is itself a sin. It's a sin because we presume to judge others as only God has the right to do, and because we presume ourselves righteous when we are not.

How exactly does a homosexual in marriage even hope to not be condemned?

That isn't any of our business.

Christians are irrational giving way to such things. In all reality, you may as well say it's biased and offensive to say alcoholics should stay away from liquor stores.
I keep that example connected to homosexuality because homosexuality is due to gluttony. One over-indulges in sexual thoughts, and soon enough, they find their selves in a muck of deviance.

Not being a homosexual, you have no idea what's happening in their hearts and minds. And even if you are, you still wouldn't know what's going on in the hearts and minds of the others. This is why such judgment and condemnation belongs to God, and not to us.

What being exposed is the overly soft hearts of naive minds. The very people who even began this intrusion of morals were not Christian, but were no doubt trying to pillage Christian morals. It is now simply being a part of this 'free world' revolution, not even having much to do with morals. It's just masqueraded that way in an attempt to make others feel as if there is something wrong with them. For Christians to sit there and let the world influence how they should feel about God's morals is the explicit work of the events in Eden.

There is no such "intrusion of morals". There is just people, each deciding for themselves what they will believe and how they will live their lives. That's all there has ever been, and all there ever will be. This fantasy of "Christian Culture" that you imagine you have to protect from the "heathens" never existed, and it never will. If you believe that homosexuality is a sin, then don't engage in it. That's all there is to it. You can't control other people, and when you try, all you do is create even more suffering than already exists in the world. Focus on your own sins, and leave other people to live their own lives in peace. God intended us all to decide for ourselves. So LET US, PLEASE!

 

[MaryContrary]

Not being a homosexual, you have no idea what's happening in their hearts and minds. And even if you are, you still wouldn't know what's going on in the hearts and minds of others. This is why such judgment and condemnation belongs to God, and not to us.

You're absolutely right. In fact, I'm persuaded. From now on I won't condemn what's going on in the hearts and minds of others, since I can't possibly know that. Rather, I'll limit myself entirely to behavior, which, as you know, is entirely external and effects everyone. :thumb:

You can't control other people, and when you try, all you do is create even more suffering than already exists in the world. Focus on your own sins, and leave other people to live their own lives in peace. God intended us all to decide for ourselves. So LET US, PLEASE!

:doh:

You know...I'm not even going to say it. This is so glaringly obvious that if you can't see it already my pointing it out with flashing neon signs wouldn't make a dent. :nono:

 

[PureX]

You're absolutely right. In fact, I'm persuaded. From now on I won't condemn what's going on in the hearts and minds of others, since I can't possibly know that. Rather, I'll limit myself entirely to behavior, which, as you know, is entirely external and effects everyone.

Good. I still have not seen you explain how the sexual behavior of other people effects you, negatively.

You know...I'm not even going to say it. This is so glaringly obvious that if you can't see it already my pointing it out with flashing neon signs wouldn't make a dent.

Yep, the air has completely gone out of that flat old tire, now. Not another roll left in it. And I do dearly hope you'll let go of it, finally, but I'm not going to bet any money on it.

 

[MaryContrary]

Good. I still have not seen you explain how the sexual behavior of other people effects you, negatively.

I don't think I've spoken on that yet. Might be why you haven't seen it. Kinda like how you haven't explained how you're not a bigot by your own standard. Or even, you know, the actual standard of bigotry.

Yep, the air has completely gone out of that flat old tire, now. Not another roll left in it. And I do dearly hope you'll let go of it, finally, but I'm not going to bet any money on it.

No, no. I have indeed given up your explaining why your own standard of bigotry doesn't apply to you.

 

[Angel4Truth]

It's amazing to me that people actually imagine that the "Nut-uh, YOU are!" response has any meaning or merit whatever.

Dont let anyone stop you from being a complete hypocrite for all to see, its amazing to watch, please continue.