Does Respectfully Disagreeing with LGBT Rights Automatically Make Someone a Bigot?

[Ruff2muffs]

I want to hear everyone's opinion on why or why not, but here's why I think...maybe

They haven't always so respectfully disagreed with black people, but laws have changed and times have changed to the point where that's about all the klu klux klan can do. They don't lynch people anymore, they don't murder people and burn crosses in people's yard anymore, but they just respectfully and peacefully disagree.

The KKK are still racists. Why? Because their ideals are racist, What they stand for is still racist, and I think this logic applies to those having bigoted ideals as well.

Now I'm going to do something stupid and refute my own argument, and it starts with a three letter word: WHY?

The reason behind someone's ideals has a lot to do with whether they are bigoted or racist. In the case of the KKK, there is no logical reason for someone to hold the opinion that black people are lesser than white people as a matter of principle. You can't even begin that argument without at least a thousand face-palms of ignorant and bias

In some cases though, namely one, I can kinda understand why some might be against something like gay marriage. Some people suggest that gay marriage undermines the structure of the family. That it leaves the door open for polygamy and that without a set structure like traditional marriage society will suffer. yeah you can tell I've been arguing with Catholics😂 But the point is that while they've been pretty much proven wrong on all accounts, nowhere in that reason did you hear "because they're nasty faggots."

Or "because they're sin will bring demons upon us". You can tell that the concern is genuine and not just blatant stupidity or hatred. The reason they have for disagreeing with gay marriage is presented as an argument and they lists real world reasons. Like I said there's no facts to support those reasons, but I think it'd be dishonest to say they just pulled it out of there ass to push a bigoted agenda.

In conclusion, I've found that there is a gray area between a bigot and a concerned individual, and not just a line that divides you from those who disagree with you.

[RJGraveyTrain]

You don't have to agree with anything really, but in my personal opinion, when you get to a point where you disagree with basic human rights based solely on someone's personal sexual orientation, I think less of you as a person. If I'm honest.

I don't believe that anybody should be denied rights based on such things, no matter what their arguments are. While I don't necessarily hate people who are opposed to it, and would not always refer to them as bigots, I do think that they are less empathetic or logical considering denying people basic rights (such as to get married) is wrong no matter how you paint it. Will I go and shit on everybody who disagrees with that? No. But I certainly will openly disagree with them.

[OlderAndWiser]

"Bigot" or "racist" is defined as any member of the majority who holds a belief contrary to that which is politically correct. "Bigot" or "racist" is a label which is applied with the intent of causing public shame so that the dissident person will be silent. The politically correct crown does not want discussion or logical discourse of their positions; your choices are to conform or be shamed. This point is illustrated by many of the responses to this post. It is ironic that the PC crowd thinks of itself as tolerant when it does not tolerate opposing views. Hypocrisy. . . it's everywhere.

scontent-atl3-1.xx.fbcdn.net/.../...46989881_n.jpg

[sdistotallyme]

Spot on sir. This is one of the reasons Trump has risen in popularity. I'm actually not crazy about him myself (I will take him over HRC though). However its funny that so many liberals are befuddled on why he is so popular. The truth there is a very quiet yet sizeable portion of this country that have gotten more and more and more angry at the aggressive marxism that has prevailed under the obama years. We are not angry about other people's views, we are angry that ours have been censored. We are angry that our freedom of speech is now "hate" speech as our bill of rights gets trampled on. Trump is giving us a voice. Again I don't like everything about him but I think he is our last hope to bring sanity back to this country.

[OlderAndWiser]

@sdistotallyme He is not my favorite candidate, either, but a far better choice than Clinton.

[GreatnessRevamped]

big·ot
ˈbiɡət/
noun
a person who is intolerant toward those holding different opinions.

rac·ist
ˈrāsəst/
noun
1.
a person who believes that a particular race is superior to another.

Where the fuck are you getting your definitions from?

[OlderAndWiser]

@GreatnessRevamped I understand the dictionary definition of the terms and I can speak the Queen's English with great erudition and pedantry. I don't need a lesson on the dictionary definitions.

My definitions are based upon how the left and the media use those terms to attempt to control political and social discourse.

[GreatnessRevamped]

What's wrong the media? They are givers.
They give the public what they desire: to be lead like a heard of sheep. :D
The masses lives are pointless and boring, so they need stupid media like Fox and Kardashians to go through their day. It's really a public service. :D

Seriously though, fuck the news.

[OlderAndWiser]

@GreatnessRevamped I am no fan of the media. What in the fuck are Kardashians?

[GreatnessRevamped]

If you don't know, then God has blessed you.
LOL.

[OlderAndWiser]

@GreatnessRevamped I have some vague understanding that it is a clan of attention whores. More than that I do not wish to know.

[ILostTheKey]

100%. Couldn't agree more.

[madhatters4]

yes it makes you a bigot. but if you are going to argue so vehemently for your point than why not just accept that you are what you are

KKK members will not state tehy are not racist. they know they are and they are fine with what they are. so rather than trying to re-define a word by trying to apply unproven logic just accept what you are, which is a person who is intolerant of someone holding a different opinion

[sdistotallyme]

So I should not get angry when ANTItheists (not atheists) claim that Christianity is poison to humanity? Yet many atheist dominated countries (russian, china, north korea) have horrible track records when it comes to human rights? Also I don't like the KKK anymore than you do. However what real power do they have in 2016? How big are their numbers (less than 2000),? What political influence do they have? When it comes to domestic crime... how much have they done in recent times? Who respects them? Yes they have a bloody, horrible history. But what about today?

[madhatters4]

@sdistotallyme your points don't really say anything to suggest that my general statement isn't still fact. the influence, dominance or numbers of the KKK are wholly irrelevant. regardless of their activity the KKK is still a racist group full of bigots who fully admit it. they may not like the label but they at least live by it. my feeling is if you are going to be something OWN it. don't deny it. if i'm racist i'm going to say i'm a racist. i'm a feminist. i believe that women deserve equal treatment as men. So i fully admit that i'm a feminist regardless of what other people may think about it. I'm a pacifist. i don't like war or physical violence, people may say i'm soft (or other not so nice words) but i'm going to deny what i am... because by definition i am those things

[sdistotallyme]

Yeah ignore the facts and use the liberal ace hole in one hush word and call me a "racist". I just realized you can't be reasoned with. You better get back to making "hitler" signs for your next Donald trump protest.

[RedThread]

@sdistotallyme you're forgetting atheist dominated countries like Sweden and Norway. Such evil dictatorships they are 😂

[sdistotallyme]

Yeah Norway and Sweden are so "tolerant" that they welcome muslim refugees with open arms and were thanked with skyrocketing violent rapes. Look it up.

[Rawrzz]

The New Black Panther Party is also racist. You should hear some of their speeches. "Kill all white people. Kick down their doors, steal their white babies and skin them alive." Really, it's inciting violence, but they're still allowed to make the speeches. But, once you start knocking down free speech, things will go south.

There really is a logical reason. Many white people take information from ghettos and Africa and use that to generalize what black peoples' nature is, absolutely. "Animals". Black accomplishments through history are very sparse, honestly, in contrast. Some KKK members have fairly rational reasons for believing the way they do. Even Hitler's foundation of fear of interbreeding had some degree of reason to it and was based on the science of the time.

It's *very* flawed and dangerous thinking, for sure. But it is a rational reason. On the same hand, the Black Panther Party also has a rational reason for stating to skin all white babies alive. Given Western history. However. Their reasoning is also flawed, because they are approaching the situation from an innately racist stance. Not the obvious one, but they are innately separating white people from black people, as though we are different, as the KKK does. But we're not.

Africans sold their own into slavery; whites sold their own into slavery; Arabs were super big on slavery; Japanese had some episodes of slavery. Pretty sure most/all groups did. But, back to my point. The separation "you are black; I am white" is the underlying racist statement, because we are all human; and, under the same circumstances, we do the exact same things. But! It is *based* on rational. That's the tricky thing about delusions. The harder ones to break are based on some sliver, big or small, of truth, then they extemporize any incoming information and fold that into the preferential rationality of their beliefs.

But, ultimately, yes. However respectful you are doesn't have any bearing on your preferences and tolerances/acceptance of others. However. I think this is misleading in that some people who are anti LGBT can be very kind, regardless of their stance against LGBT. My mom, for instance--my whole family really--are very much opposed to LGBT rights; however, my mom has had gay friends; my brother is always telling my dad not to hate. So, I don't think it's right to use "bigot" as a wholly "douchebag" term. That's just how I see the word.

[Rawrzz]

Taking the definition of "bigot", I don't think there is any grey area. But, the term is kinda interchangeable with "most rotten scumbag on the planet", rather than used with its definition, I feel. But, like I said. The truly dangerous part of delusions like this isn't that they aren't being respectful, but that it opens up a doorway to true hatred, in my opinion.

[hellionthesage]

Bigot: a person who is intolerant toward those holding different opinions
ie bigots are not those who disagree with something but rather are intolerant towards it. Intolerance is not something that is unique to catholics or any other group, in fact I have found the most intolerant and by extention bigoted people are the very ones who claim they are the opposite. My brother is a gay liberal who talks about being open minded and accepting of others. He also stated all texans are crazy all conservatives are stupid any one who essentially doesn't agree with him is inferior evil or stupid (or a combination of all three) etc. If you look the LGBT community is forcing private businesses to accept them and their business against their will ie removing their rights and using the government to enforce their beliefs on others ie they are intolerant of others views and wish to force them to accept theirs. This is bigotry. So yes their is a gray area one can disagree and not be a bigot, one can even be on what is commonly viewed as the "right" side of an argument and be a bigot, one can be on the "wrong" side of the argument and not be. Its how its done not the act or view itself.

[ObscuredBeyond]

The "logic" of rejecting their behavior making you a "bigot" means, by their own definition, that they are bigots too, for rejecting your behavior of not accepting their behavior as acceptable for yourself to be celebrating or participating in.

They adamantly refuse to address the logical issue at heart with this hypocrisy.

However, those exploiting gay issues to undermine the actual rights of others are not at all concerned with gays at day's end. The affront to those other groups and their other, actual rights, was always the real goal. The whole forcing of the Modern Sturmabteilung on us has always been a smokescreen for elitists, whose real agenda is that they see the western notion of free society as a roadblock to their quest to have the kind of feudalistic control over the world that they have longed for since the fall of Rome.

In the US, that means the Constitution is a roadblock they must destroy by any means necessary. If that means that Massachusetts Republicrats will now try to make it illegal to point out - even medically - what's wrong (or even risky!) about certain "protected" sexual behaviors - or even make it a crime to refuse to celebrate or participate in said behaviors - that should tell you all you need to know.

They are the real bigots, for believing that your faith in the 1st Amendment warrants them treating you like you have no right to exist, let alone be treated as anything other than a second-class citizen.

Over 70 years ago, the exact same movement targeted Jewish opposition this way. The event was called Kristallnacht.

Lawfare against bakeries is simply a modern version of that, using activist judges instead of shattering glass windows, to create the illusion that the victimized bakers are the "thugs," rather than the extortionists behind these frivolous lawsuits.

Even today, they wish to kick in Lot's door. But they can never find the door. For they will never be content; not even once they have raped angels.

[fuqthegovt]

If people want to be bigots or hateful that's their prerogative. Personally I don't care if people want to sleep with their other close family members , the family pets, their neighbors 13yo sons and daughters (after obtaining their parents' permission), or someone of the same sex. It's when they flaunt the crap in public or the media does (ie gay marriage and public bathroom crap, just make a 3rd for the freaks and be done with it) I have a problem with it (like most people that don't want to see that shit, it disgusts them). At this point I'm so sick of having the crap shoved in my face I would probably laugh and then go to a bar to celebrate (I don't drink often) if some nutcase went to a gay pride parade and shot them all. Apparently the LGBT's didn't get the memo that no one noticed or cared (other than maybe police if you were in the 50's instead of the 80's) when they were in the closet. I only hope that when the federal gov't eventually goes bankrupt (has always happened throughout history when people get to vote themselves monthly gifts from the public treasury) state laws will stand, most of which tend toward a don't-ask,- don't-tell policy and considered indescent/obscenity in public so would go back to being outlawed.

[Anonymous]

Well, let's look at the definition of a bigot.

Bigot: Noun - A person who is intolerant toward those holding different opinions.

Now, let's look at the word tolerant and intolerant since so many people have the tendency to not use these words correctly.

Intolerant: Adjective - not tolerant of views, beliefs, or behavior that differ from one's own.

Now, since part of the definition of intolerant uses the word tolerant, one must know what tolerant means before fully understanding the definition.

Tolerant: Adjective - showing willingness to allow the existence of opinions or behavior that one does not necessarily agree with.

So, intolerant would mean to not allow the existence of opinions or behavior that one does not necessarily agree with.

So, back to a bigot. A bigot is someone who does not allow the existence or behavior of one that holds a different opinion.

So, if a person disagrees with the lgbt rights... Even if they were to go as far as to say that they don't believe they should have rights whatsoever... but despite their beliefs they allow the existence of lgbt fighting for their rights and possibly obtaining them. . . then they are, by definition, not a bigot.

[AssJacket]

The KKK allows for black rights because they have no power to stop it. If they could, they would. Similarly, those against LGBT rights absolutely stop it if they could, and have done so time and time again.

[Opinion Owner]

@AssJacket Okay? Have I stated otherwise?

[AssJacket]

You said you aren't a bigot if you "allow" a group to fight for and/or obtain rights. In this and most other cases, no one is allowing anything and in fact, would disallow it if it were possible for them to do so. That makes them a bigot.

[Opinion Owner]

@AssJacket You said that I said, "you aren't a bigot if you "allow" a group to fight for and/or obtain rights". I said, "despite their beliefs they allow the existence of lgbt fighting for their rights and possibly obtaining them. . . then they are, by definition, not a bigot.". Now, where I said, "despite their beliefs they allow" . . . The few words I had in my head but didn't write down in the last part is "showing willingness to" So, if a person shows willingness to allow the existence of lfbt fighting for their rights, then they are not a bigot.

This doesn't make them wrong or right, but we're not talking about that. We're talking about the definition of the word bigot. A bigot will not show willingness to allow (ie will not be tolerant) the existence or behavior of one that holds a different opinion.

Are you suggesting that the KKK is tolerant of blacks? Even if they can't do anything about the legal rights, they actively show they are not showing willingness to allow

[Opinion Owner]

blacks to have rights.

[AssJacket]

Thanks for the clarification. I still think people against LGBT groups actively try to keep them from fighting for rights, and in my mind that makes them bigots. However, they aren't quite as hostile as the KKK, true.

[Opinion Owner]

@AssJacket Well, let's look at the word willingness.

Willingness: Adjective - (used in the context above) Done, given, or accepted voluntarily or ungrudgingly.

Ungrudgingly means - not grudging
Grudging means given, granted, or allowed only reluctantly or resentfully.

So, one can not show willingness to allow if they are only allowing something reluctantly or resentfully. So, if a person who is against the LGBT only allows the LGBT to have rights reluctantly or resentfully, then they are a bigot. They have to show willingness (accept voluntarily) to allow them to have their rights despite being against them.

For example: I'm against marriage altogether. Homosexual, heterosexual, monogamous polygamous... However, that's just me personally. So, although I am against marriage, I am tolerant of marriage. So, if 2 people or 3,4,5 or however many want to get married, then that's their business. I don't agree with it but I voluntarily allow others to have the right to be married.

[BigJake]

Contemporary liberal activists are trying to push their agenda while quashing dissent at the same time. These supposed champions of free speech really only believe in free speech when it parrots their doctrines. The transgender bathroom debate is just the latest issue they've taken up.

In my city, Houston, our openly gay mayor tried to force an ordinance down the city's throat that would have made it legal for men to use women's locker rooms. Citizens saw this for what it was and forced it to a vote, where it failed spectacularly.

Rather than accepting the will of the electorate--the same electorate that had elected her twice!--she went on a public temper tantrum, slandering the 70% of Houstonians who voted against it as bigots and cretins. She even publicly hoped that her own city would suffer a boycott from LBGT groups. It was a truly pathetic display from a grown woman who was an elected official.

So any time gay activists complain about intolerance, I just laugh at their hypocrisy. They're some of the least tolerant people toward those who hold opposing

[Miezko]

Well, before we classify it as bigotry, let's first establish a working definition. Dictionary. com defines a bigot as “a person who is utterly intolerant of any differing creed, belief, or opinion" so with that established, is your disagreement with the lgbtq utterly intolerant?
Now, recently I was talking to a gentleman about getting rid of gender specific bathrooms and replacing them with unisex single occupancy bathrooms as a solution to the current transgender bathroom issue. Now, no matter how many obstacles I overcame, he just kept on fishing for new obstacles, new reasons why it couldn't work. (It got to the point that his only two reasons why it was plausible was because they were stalls and not urinals and that they were unisex, and no one wanted that)
After a few exchanges it became clear to me that he was arguing from a position of complete intolerance. It didn't matter what solution I came up with it just want going to satisfy him. So in his case, yea that was bigotry at work.
But it is true that many do have real valid concerns over these issues. For example, is it okay for a male to female transgender person to participate in women only sports? I remember a few years back there was an issue over a transgender female doing ufc against, I hate using the word but, cis gender women. She was post op, but today there isn't an operation that changes her bone structure to that of a woman's. So other female fighters argued that she had an unfair advantage. Now, imagine if this was a high school sport. Your daughter doesn't make the team, but a girl who was born a guy does.
Or the thing I do have a problem with, the idea that a gay couple should be aloud to get married in a Christian service even thigh the priest doesn't agree with it. This isn't a restaurant owner kicking a gay couple out, this a priest, a man who makes his living off of his believes being told her had to throw those believes out the window.

[Anonymous]

Of course you can.

Marriage is religious. Not just a legal contract and I think the idea it's moved away from religion is wrong. The idea people want to force the church to allow gay marriage is wrong. It's a contract between you and God. You're allowed to be married in law I don't have a problem but not in a church if the religion doesn't want to.

To me being married outside a Church (or any religious setting) isn't the same as one with a religious marriage. Legally they can be equal but there is a line.

Within law you should absolutely be as equal as anyone else but much like I can't force a Transgender to use a different bathroom (seriously who cares who was peeing before me?) you shouldn't expect to have special treatment on religious things.

That really is my only problem. For some reason protection of the LBGT community comes before religious freedom. Freedom of speech on university campuses (safe spaces) and many other rights I consider basic.

The day I can't agree with a LBGT member over something is the day something has gone wrong. It's the same with women. Far to often those who disagree with feminists hate women. We don't. We just think your statistics are wrong or in some cases your point isn't what we see.

[oddwaffle]

Yes. If you deny someone else right on the basis of their skin color or then you are a bigot. If you deny some else rights on the basis of their gender then you are discriminating against their gender.

I know how you feel butt you know how morally wrong g that feeling is. Sailors used to believe the women on a boat will cause bad luck. They were right to be concerned about their lives!!! However, we know that is wrong. So were the idea of blacks being too low born to be human and couldn't handle being educated. We all know how wrong the idea is.

The difference between a genuine concern and blind fear is one of them actually views things from both sides. If you cannot imagine yourself standing on the other side then you aren't having a concern. You are just following the crowd.

[JRICHARDS1996]

But denying bakers their rights as Christians to run their business the way they desire is perfectly okay? Bullshit. LGBT rights is not about "rights" but about the citizens of Sodom and Gomorra trying to force their way into Lot's home. Lol ten years ago they only wanted civil union and the thought of marriage was unthinkable even to them, but look how that turned out. Now they want to bully businesses into accommodating their agenda and indoctrinate children into accepting their insanity via the gender (re) definition rhetoric.

[Ruff2muffs]

@JRICHARDS1996 I'm sorry you feel that way, but believe me when I say that I'm gay and I'm don't want to bully anyone. What you're talking about is an attitude totally unrelated to any given issue. You see that exact same behavior with ignorant fundamentalist Christians, with ignorant feminists, and even ignorant people of different races all playing unnecessarily whiny victim cards in petty situations. It's nothing new and it's nothing that you can use to dismiss the real issues of inequality.

[JRICHARDS1996]

I'm sorry but I live in NorCal and I'm tired of having LGBT rhetoric shoved down my throat at every moment even from college professors who should remain objective. Having to write countless essays about HIV positive sexual deviants like Matthew Shepard and being ostracized simply for opposing same-sex marriage will do that to you.

[Ruff2muffs]

@JRICHARDS1996 believe it or not I know exactly how you feel😔 I get the same kind of rhetoric from religious classmates. Except it's not being called a bigot or a used of being hateful, they preach about how evil people like me are and how we're going to burn for eternity for "choosing" to be sodomite whores. I'm more than a little sick of that shit too but we don't get anywhere by refusing to live and let live

[JRICHARDS1996]

If it makes you feel any better, Blessed Seraphim Rose was gay but he is practically a saint in the Russian Orthodox Church.

[Ruff2muffs]

@JRICHARDS1996 not really. But it does cheer me up that you tried to cheer me up🙂

[oddwaffle]

There used to be a restaurant that had a poster saying "no dogs and niggers allowed". Well I guess it's gone now! Imagine the bad press or law suits a Baker can get with a board saying "no dogs and Christian or whites allowed".

There used to be a cosmetic company complained about an employee religion no 'fit' with the company image. The court pound it flat.

There is a reason why there is anti discrimination law. Imagine you are trying to work for a Japanese company with a strong Shinto religion and they don't like white Christian. Will you sue them? Do you think they are right? My dad used to work for a Japanese company as a contractor. There was a distinct class differentiation between a Japanese engineer and a non-japanese one.

[JRICHARDS1996]

Race =/= Homosexuality

The former is something existing outside of an individual's control whereas the latter is a choice, at least the action of homosexuality. They were not refused service because they were homosexual, but because they were going to use the service for a homosexual action which violated the owner's beliefs.

As a Mexican American, I will never LGBTs as a fellow minority and the fact that they need to compare their imaginary plight to the plight of racial minorities a generation ago just demonstrates how infantile their thinking is.

Furthermore, businesses should possess the autonomy to conduct themselves however they wish, even if it means engaging in discrimination. And in turn consumers can choose not to shop from them. The free market works itself out.

[oddwaffle]

@JRICHARDS1996 Race, gender, religious beliefs or sexual orientation. They are things that you do not judge a person based on that. You are a classic example of being intolerant and going deeper into bigotry.

The owners belief does not overwrite someone else sexual orientation or religions belief. While any business does have to right to choose to service people they want, it is morally wrong to base that on your belief about gender, race, religion or sexual orientation.

Businesses should have autonomy but that doesn't mean it should have a free reign in doing whatever it wants. Engaged in racial and gender discrimination is not something you want businesses to do. Oligopoly, monopoly, labor discrimination, business ethics... you do not let businesses run the way it wants. At best, you have a for profits business that doesn't care about people and at worst you have failed businesses.

[Accipiter]

No it doesn't. But liberals would like you to believe so. That's just the thing that liberals do: call people racist when they're not, call people sexist when they are not, call people homophobic when they're not, etc. etc. etc. It's funny you bring up the KKK as if they are still a relevant organization. They're not. There's probably less than 2,000 active members in the Klan today. There are more anti-racist pro-LGBT activists than there are racists and bigots out there. So what they do is they'll search high and low to find a bigot, or they'll fabricate a hate crime to get media attention. For example, they'll google search thousands of Christian bakeries until they find one that won't bake a wedding cake for a gay couple. Then they go in with all piss and vinigar and bring hell down on this poor bakery.

[Ruff2muffs]

Actually they are still relevant. You knew who they were didn't you? And about all the things they did in the past?

I personally think yes they should have went to a different bakery, but it doesn't change that a business serving the public is not allowed to discriminate. If it were a charity/non profit bakery ran by a church, then they can do whatever they want, but if you start a public business you have to abide by the law.

That being said I think you're just in the mood to point fingers so that means you should also point at county clerks who refuse to give marriage licenses and groups of people holding "God hates fags" signs. That is, unless you don't think they're doing anything wrong.

[Accipiter]

Actually they're not. The KKK is history; they have zero influence in society today as everybody wishes to distance themselves as far away from them as possible. It's been reduced down to a small handful of inbred hicks.

Businesses in many places reserve the right to deny services to anyone. If you get 86'd from a place of business, you are banned and can get jailed for trespassing. Yes they should have found a different bakery, but they wanted the media attention, lawsuit money, and the 15-min of fame.

[MakeShiftThug]

White "Americans" put forth the notion that blacks were animals to justify slavery and force them into labour and to keep them subservient.

The plight of the blacks is in no way comparable with today's LGBT community.
From a legal perspective, Homosexuals had the same rights as heterosexuals. The notion that "Gays have less rights" is absolutely fallacious. The whole issue of Gay rights is a facade. At least in America and first world countries.

Opposing gay marriage does not make you bigoted or a homophone.

[AssJacket]

As of last year, they do mostly have the same rights as heterosexuals.

[MakeShiftThug]

@AssJacket even before gay marriage was legalised.

[beautiful_1]

I agree, gays aren't fighting for equal rights they are fighting to be the American Dream. They are fighting to shut heterosexuals opinions up.

[beautifulangel76]

I don't think people are born gay and if they were then I believe that we would able to reproduce with someone of the same sex. I also don't think there would be females and males if this was how things were. I don't think that disagreeing with being gay and gay rights makes someone a bigot. Not everyone has to agree with that kind of lifestyle and not everyone will. People just need to respect the fact that we all have a right to our own opinions and we don't have to accept gay marriage.
But this disagreeing or you're a bigot thing really depends on the topic. If it's over skin color then yes that does make you a bigot but with something like gay marriage it doesn't.

[beautiful_1]

I agree!

[somebodysaycheese]

What I can't stand is people comparing black struggles to LGBT that in and of itself is racist. You are black , that is your DNA. its a fact. Your not born trans that is a fact and we have ZERO proof your born gay! Black people where beaten, enslaved and raped because they werent considered human just for their skin color and features. How can you tell if someone is gay , you can't unless he is paroding around being extra flamboyant. BUT you can always tell if someone is black and in european history anyone darker than them at some point was considered black. Racism is about superiority and domination. Being against LGBT a. k. a gay marriage is being against changing what marriage was , man and woman. male and female. TWO different arguments.

[SirenDep]

I am of the opinion that whatever some people like to do in the privacy of their bedroom is fine, if both are consenting adults. And whatever they do, doesn't make them have less rights than the rest of the people. So, I think that there shouldn't be discrimination against gay people. However, while it is logical to want equality in a society that only recently started accepting them, it's another thing to want to change the structure of society based on your sexual preferences. It's one thing to be able to be with whoever you want to without any repercussions, and another thing to advertise that relationship as an alternative family, and want it to become accepted as a norm.

[RationalMale]

If you want to claim that, first you need to show proof homosexuality is genetic. Black people are genetically black, a DNA test will confirm. people want to group gays as a protected class... But they haven't proven anything. Pedophiles might as well declare they are born that way, using the same standards.

[sdistotallyme]

notice how after the "gay revolution" the "transexual" revolution quickly followed. Also the left is now defining gender identity as a "state of mind", not what is between your legs. Funny they always get to write the rules on what is right or wrong... and through the mass media/public education/hollywood/social media censorship they win. After what has happened in short amount of time what you alluded to above could be next. Seriously, think about it.

[Miezko]

Okay, so than replace black for Muslim.

[RationalMale]

@Miezko so you're saying homosexuality should be accepted like a religion? Maybe pedophiles should claim the same.

[Miezko]

Um. . . ? You brush with very broad strokes.

[RationalMale]

@Miezko Hmmkay then what was your point?

[Miezko]

That Muslims are a protected group that aren't genetically Muslim, so than gays could be a protected group despite not being able to prove its genetic.

[Miezko]

@sdistotallyme discrimination doesn't have to occur only to racial groups or religious groups. Our government (assuming you're in the U. S.) is suppose to protect against discrimination of every race, religion, belief, or creed.
But being a pedophile is illegal because children can't consent were as grown men can. But even still discriminating against pedophiles is still illegal. If you owned a small business and you refused to service a pedophile based on the fact that he/she is a pedophile they could sue.

[RationalMale]

@Miezko Ehh maybe it's supposed to. But it doesn't. It doesn't even enforce the law equally--just look at the New Black Panther Party Voter Intimidation case in 2008 that was dismissed after a prosectutor got a guilty verdict.

[Miezko]

Perhaps, but that doesn't justify discriminating against others.

[RationalMale]

@Miezko Nah. Survival of the Fittest justifies discriminating against others.

[Miezko]

Survival of the fittest doesn't require discrimination. That's a misguided notion as to what social darwinism is. It's a perverted monstrosity that mirrors Hitler's believes. Real social darwinism requires diversity. It's built on diversity. And the forces that determine the “fittest" are organic and occur slowly over many decades.

[RationalMale]

@Miezko Diversity is a state of flux, with humans. That state of flux eventually ends as one group has majority control of an area.

[Miezko]

Social darwinism doesn't differ from Darwin's theory of evolution, it's just applied to society. Without diversity organisms are ill equipped to deal with change, they're slow to adapt, if they even can adapt. Prove of just this is what happened to the banana. Instead of having a diversity, we cloned them, so genetically all bananas were the same. Then, there was an outbreak, I believe it was caused by a fungus, but it may have been a bacteria or virus. Because all of their genes were the same, none of them were able to resist it. They went extinct.
The same is true of social darwinism. If a society lacks diversity it is unable to adapt to changes within the society.

[heavensgift2girls]

@Miezko That is why banana flavoring doesn't taste like bananas anymore. They taste like the extinct type of banana.

[fuqthegovt]

@Miezko But children can consent. How? Simply legally lower the age of consent from 18 back to 10. At this point It would not surprise me if they did just that. Believe it or not the age of consent is whatever Congress defines it to be. In 1875 it was 10 is every state at the time. In Delaware it was 7(!) all the way to 1895. Probably the only reason it changed was because a few bored reporters decided to make a story so rented some 10yo prostitutes (prostitution has always been popular since civilization began and probably before) and wrote about it for newspaper articles. Of course this stirred outrage (mostly among the moralists, prohibitionists, and other various religious groups) and got a lot of voters to write their congressmen. The rest is history.

[RationalMale]

@fuqthegovt yeah, that's where the gay crusade is going. Legalize pedophiles.

[Miezko]

@fuqthegovt legally they can't consent, from a developmental perspective they can't consent.

[fuqthegovt]

@Miezko they can legally consent if the age of consent is lowered to whatever congress says it is. They can (though unlikely any time soon) lower it to 10 if they chose to in principle.

[RationalMale]

@fuqthegovt Legality doesn't change what's pedophilia. The government could declare that female consent is not needed for sex. Wouldn't change the morality of the issue.

[Miezko]

@fuqthegovt developmentally, they can't consent, and because they haven't lowered the age, and with good reason, they can't consent legally either.

[fuqthegovt]

Pedophilia is "sexual feelings directed toward children". Congress makes the distinction between children and adults. Today it's considered a psychiatric problem, but that doesn't mean much when all the pedos would have to do is copy what the lgbt's have done; protest the APA until they eventually declare it normal. Then get the media to spread that ridiculous idea and hope it gets popular. After that get to work on Congress. Granted this is over decades of time but it's the exact same idea the lgbt's used and would not surprise me a bit if in 2050 people can legally marry 12-13 yo's in every state, no matter what people's opinions of the morality of it are. Obviously people's majority opinions don't count for much anymore (what passed at the state level was overridden at the federal level).

[Miezko]

@fuqthegovt they can't legally consent, and as long as that's true there's no point in talking about what if.

[fuqthegovt]

@Miezko not yet, give it time.

[Miezko]

@fuqthegovt I have no reason to believe they will.

[fuqthegovt]

@Miezko They've already demonstrated how/why. Being gay was punishable by prison time 50 years ago just like pedophilia is now.

[Miezko]

@fuqthegovt apples to oranges.

[Oxi112094]

I have a few religious friends who are against homosexuality, but I don't consider them to be a bigot. I think they are just ignorant on the matter. Being called ignorant isn't always an insult. Its just they don't know too much about the lifestyles of other people and that's OK. You can disagree with a lifestyle politely and not be a bigot about it. I feel like bigotry comes from knowing and understanding what it means to be part of the LGBT community but they willingly show disgust and hatred. That's a bigot.

[John_Doesnt]

No, there is just as much logic and reason for the KKK discriminating against black people as there is for people discriminating against LGBT.

Do some more research and you will find the KKK used to say black people were corrupting marriage, family and all the other arguments used against the LGBT. You seriously should have researched the KKK more before posting this. And also researched the history of racism against black people by the government more because it was the exact same set of arguments. They even had bathroom legal problems assuming that if blacks shared the same bathrooms as whites they would rape little kids.

Bigots are bigots.

[MsElizabeth96]

The difference between racists and those who disagree with MOGI (Marginalised Orientations, Genders, and Intersex) rights, is that being racist means you are against an actual group of people, as in the people themselves, just for being who they are.
Those against certain MOGI rights though aren't against non-straight or non-cis individuals as people, they are just against certain actions or institutions. . E. g. Same sex marriage, or surgically manipulating someone in order to treat mental issues.
That's the difference between simply being against these things and being an actual homo/transphobic.

Also, I really like you @Ruff2muffs
Even when you disagree with certain views you do so respectfully and can even point out some of the positive aspects of their arguments, even if you can't accept them fully. You seem very fair, balanced, and accepting.

[JRICHARDS1996]

The Left will claim that they are "tolerant" but in reality is just a hyper aggressive agenda to force everyone into agreement with them. Political correctness exists solely as a weapon to silence dissent. That is to be expected in politics however.

[Ruff2muffs]

If only you knew what irony meant😒