Yes, I agree with you on this. Your original example trying to argue against anti-gay marriage=anti-gay was not relevant at all though. You only pointed out the differences between personal beliefs and actions taken because of those beliefs.
-
Hey Guest. Check out your NeoGAF Wrapped 2025 results here!
CFA response to anti-gay alleg. "Guilty as charged." Do NOT gloat about eating at CFA
- Thread starter RBH
- Start date
- Status
Yes, I agree with you on this. Your original example trying to argue against anti-gay marriage=anti-gay was not relevant at all though. You only pointed out the differences between personal beliefs and actions taken because of those beliefs.
NathanMcMahon
Banned
this is why I was confused. But, if you think gay people shouldn't get married that's dopey, whether you "support" them actually doing it or not. there just seems to be a weird disconnect there that I have a hard time understanding.
Count Dookkake
Member
I fucking love it when the oppressors cry about oppression and the haters cry about hate.
Buncha sissies.
Buncha sissies.
Because it's still bigoted, it's just a reasonable bigotry brought on by and understanding of where our culture is in it's acceptance of gay marriage.
Your belief is bigoted by its very nature. That's why you don't think gay people should marry. That is true even before we reach the situation of engaging in politics, therefore it is true once we do so.
TheGreatDivide
Banned
Frankly, if I was gay I wouldn't want to get married. It's an archaic concept. Gay couples should get any legal benefits married couples get, but that is all they should care about. Marriage is a stupid thing, not something that should be put on a pedestal in 2012.
Yeah, I probably didn't bring up my point in the best manner. I'm not good at arguing anyhow. And maybe it's just my upbringing in the Bible-belt, but I know Christians that would fall in the, "I think gay marriage is spiritually wrong according the what the Bible teaches." And - beyond sharing their beliefs if asked - that view goes no further; these same individuals are in support of gay marriage and want gays to have the exact same rights as everyone else. I don't see that as being bigoted or expressing intolerance/hatred. They're not trying to deny anyone's rights.
Edit: And for all those saying that they're still bigots - explain to me how they fit the definition. You can call them close-minded, douches, idiots, whatever. But they're not being utterly intolerant, expressing hatred, or denying anyone's rights. They'd have to start doing that to be bigoted.
nVidiot_Whore
Banned
The root belief is usually "homosexuality is wrong."
IMO, the belief itself is bigoted.
I HAVE heard non-religious people who don't think homosexuality has any moral "wrong" argue against gay marriage.
For the most part the argument seems to be "call it something else, let the religious people have their word." Which I don't agree with, partly because it's based on a false pretense, partly because it's a compromise with bigots.
IMO, the belief itself is bigoted.
I HAVE heard non-religious people who don't think homosexuality has any moral "wrong" argue against gay marriage.
For the most part the argument seems to be "call it something else, let the religious people have their word." Which I don't agree with, partly because it's based on a false pretense, partly because it's a compromise with bigots.
Count Dookkake
Member
Mercury Fred
Banned
This is a ridiculous, useless post.
Omegasquash
Member
"Because the bible tells me so, and that's that."
Which is neither perfect, nor logical. So no, there isn't one at all.
There's a slight difference because one is one is a belief system and the other involves a preference you're born with, but I'd like to once against bring up my view on religion because I think it's fairly relevant.
I consider religion to be "wrong" in that's it's a very harmful view for people to hold, but I'm not going to stop someone from believing or going to church if they want to. I would consider myself tolerant in terms of my anti-religion views, and thus not a bigot.
If someone finds homosexuality to be wrong for whatever reason that I'll never understand, yet supports their equal rights, I would consider that tolerant as well. I would consider it a pretty stupid view, but I'm sure plenty of people would feel the same about my views on religion and that's ok.
Because their views are based in hatred and intolerance. They can't wrap themselves in the bible as if it will protect them from any responsibility if their children decide to spray-paint gay slurs on someone's lawn. This quite type of reasonable intolerance can be just as harmful because we allow it to go on unabated. You don't have to openly legislate against something to be spreading your hateful and ignorant views. You don't even have to be openly hateful and ignorant, as long as you harbor thoughts of separation then you are a bigot.
No. The fact that it's even up for debate is mind boggling to me. It's literally like back in the day when inter-racial marriage was illegal/not tolerated. Completely bonkers.
And it's always the people screaming about America and Freedom that turn around and go "fuck 'dem queers!"
DR2K
Banned
Children would be sexually confused, jobs would be lost, Church morale would be at an all time low, the global economy would be destroyed, it woulden cheapen marriage for all, and all out lives would be turned upside down because of all the catastrophic events that would follow.
Way I see it, freedom of speech is the most important right there is. It's sort of a meta-right: as long as you have broad guaranteed freedom of speech, you'll be able to fight for other important rights. Any abrogation of the right to freedom of speech, even for a good cause as this one is, sets a bad precedent and potentially harms future pushes for rights.
The difference in your example, for the record, is not slight.
Beyond that, the whole concept of tolerance depends on whether that assessment was made from an objective view. When you fill in the blank with "whatever reason that I'll never understand", you leave the question of tolerance - or intolerance - unanswered.
Count Dookkake
Member
Dude Abides
Banned
But not due to their political speech or activities. So it falls neatly outside the parameters of viewpoint discrimination.
The prohibition is against governmental discrimination based on political viewpoint, not against governmental discrimination on "subjective" factors, whatever that's supposed to mean.
No they're not. They're based on a belief system that tells them the lifestyle it's wrong. That same belief system also tells them to treat others like they'd want to be treated, and not cast judgement, and love your neighbor. I get that the Bible is often used an excuse for violence and mistreatment of others (in the past, even now and [if history is an example] in the future too) - but what the Bible does not do, is tell it's believers to hate and be intolerant of others. And those individuals aren't being intolerant, they're not hating gays and they're not denying anyone's rights.
Which is... (wait for it)... bigotry.
Omegasquash
Member
Speech, yes. Lobbying or attempting to block rights from citizens, however, is not speech. In actuality, taking away that right is the highest slap in the face of the freedom that we enjoy in the US.
To be clear, I don't have a problem with a person having the right to say that he or she thinks that God hates homosexuals, or that he or she thinks they shouldn't be married. My issues come from those people having the right to try to take legal action against it, because it sets the stage for other rights to be removed based on things like religion, skin color, buying habits, and speech. Make more rights inalienable and off the table for change/discussion.
Omegasquash
Member
I didn't think he was serious....please tell me I'm right.
The reason for a belief does not answer the question of whether you are tolerant or not of someone.
You can have the most disgusting reason imaginable for any belief and still be tolerant. There are reasons that can make it more likely for someone to be intolerant, but these are not the same thing.
The reason for a belief answers the question of how valid your view is, your actions taken answer the question of how tolerant you are.
HP_Wuvcraft
Banned
The entire "man and woman" argument boggles my mind, because it's not like an openly gay dude is gonna marry and then bang a straight chick.
Basically, that argument is "gays shouldn't marry, but they should produce offspring!".
Disagree. Bigotry is when they take that view and start spreading hatred, denying others rights, and being intolerant. None of which they're doing.
Count Dookkake
Member
When you adhere to a belief system based on decree, you are choosing to bypass true morality in exchange for ease of use. This moral and intellectual laziness is the followers choice and problem, not mine. One does not get to claim innocence because he lets his belief system dictate his life. The belief system has no power without the unquestioning acquiescence of its adherents.
In short, they allow laziness and a lack of intellectual curiosity to make them into hate generators.
Who said he was serious?
Dude Abides
Banned
All of which they're doing.
Omegasquash
Member
They're funneling the money that you give them into organizations that do that work. They're funding bigotry, which makes them bigots.
Phoenician_Viking
Banned
What a ridiculous statement. They should change their trademark to Hatred in 2012
Can one actually overrate food?
lol - I'm not talking about CFA when I say refer to "them" or "they" - I'm referring to a subset of christians who have the belief that gay marriage is wrong, however they also support gay marriage and gay rights. That's not being bigoted.
I was still going off on my own tangent.
(I agree, CFA is wrong and bigoted by supporting those groups)
This is a mind-blowing paragraph...
I understand what you're trying to get at here, I really do. The Bible isn't itself an evil thing which nefariously implants hatred into peoples minds. I get it. It's the preachers and the leaders in the church who do that.
Homosexuality is a sin, and homosexuals are going to hell because what they do is wrong in God's eyes. Homosexuality is tearing families apart.
The belief that Gay people are different and that you personally cannot accept that difference does not come from nothingness. You are basically saying 'Love the Sinner, Hate the Sin' which is just a clever way for religious people to hide behind some spiritual doctrine instead of owning up to their hatred.
If you have a personal dislike toward a group of people based on anything, be it a book or a community leader or personal experience, you are bigoted. Any other terminology does not go far enough in condemning those personal dislikes. I'm not going to just let someone off the hook because the feel bad in their tummy when a gay person stands near them, but they're totally cool with them getting married and adopting a child.
Dude Abides
Banned
I agree. They're not bigoted. Both of them.
We went off on a hypothetical tangent earlier. Pretty sure ruxtpin agrees with you there.
And when these Christians have children and take them to church and those insidious views and spread into their minds, who can say what direction those intolerant teachings will take.
DR2K
Banned
Yeah, but faith says it doesn't need to be.
Omegasquash
Member
Then in that case, mea culpa for my tone.
I disagree. I think one of the overarching messages of the entire Bible is about God/Jesus loving someone even if - according to the Bible - they sin/live in sin. It's not an approach that's allowing one to hide hatred. God/Jesus approaches those in sin, recognizes the sin, yet still loves the person.
Count Dookkake
Member
Which has no bearing on the lack of perfection or logic.
did someone ask what if the KKK owned McDonalds? I'm sorry but me and Big Macs are till death do us part. I'll have to sell out on that one.
it will turn children gay.
nVidiot_Whore
Banned
I find it deplorable, and potentially horribly damaging to people to state "homosexuality is wrong."
I would certainly prefer that person state that despite their belief they still support gay rights, but it doesn't suddenly make their belief just merely a little stupid.
People commit suicide because the people around them believe "homosexuality is wrong".. they are often warped into believing it themselves, and are confused and tortured because of the feelings they have.
The worst example would be a parent.. teaching their children this "belief" without regard for the fact that these children could be gay.
Twisted stuff IMO, and while you can hold your own opinion, I consider it dangerous to suggest "homosexuality is wrong" is merely a "pretty stupid view."
Supreme Court might disagree. :/
Anyway, I could be wrong, but it appears to me that the Boston and Chicago things are specifically in retaliation for that executive's anti-gay comments. I mean, this company has been donating to anti-gay organizations for years now, right? And it's only just now that Boston and Chicago have a problem?
It just feels to me like a chilling effect on free speech. I may be missing legal niceties somewhere, but that's what it feels like to me.
You cannot have the most disgusting reason imaginable for a belief and still be tolerant because tolerance implies freedom from prejudice. If you cannot examine the reason the belief is held you have no course to define any following action (or inaction) as tolerant.
I know at this point we're arguing semantics, but I believe that if you let these Christians off the hook for their learned beliefs against gays then you've allowed a small river of bigotry to spread to the next generation and the next. We need to be as against these types of views as we are against those who actively protest against gay rights.
At the very least we know that these types of religious are reasonable and may be open to viewing Gays as normal people eventually.
Daydream Sequence
Banned
So now I'm in the mood for one of their sandwiches. Is there a brand or type of roll I should look for in the grocery store that comes close to what they use?
So... because a symbolic gesture has no meaning to you, it should have no meaning to anyone, and we should ignore the societal implications of legally allowing one group to perform said symbolic gesture and not another?
Not really.
He loves them, but still feels they require a good stoning once in a while.
- Status