Quote:No offense, but I love the loaded language you use. Again, when it is a group with whom you disagree, running for office, being heard, voting as they see fit... these are nefarious acts to be feared.
scrat
Denying women the vote, or keeping blacks to the back of the bus, were nefarious policies merely in the minds of those who disagreed with those policies?
Quote:And you throw the word bigot around rather freely.
A quick and honest estimation (it will be close) is that I've used the term 'bigot' perhaps five times total in any and all discussions here on a2k. That's two years, and (my god!) over five thousand posts.
Shall we assume that the term has an appropriate referent in the world? Websters Abridged (98) defines the term as:
A person who regards his own faith and views in matters of religion as unquestionably right, and any belief or opinion opposed to or differing from them as unreasonable or wicked. In an extended sense, a person who is intolerant of opinions which conflict with his own, as in politics or morals; one obstinately and blindly devoted to his own church, party, belief, or opinion.
Are you to argue that ANY two 'opposing' opinions are, in all case, both instances of 'bigotry'? If not, if you concur that there are real instances of bigotry to be found, what criteria do you use to measure its presence?
Once again, I'll repeat the two points made earlier, which correspond with the definition above:
- first, the push to suppress gay behaviors and status originates preponderantly from faith groups which hold they are in possession of the one true faith (all others are wrong)
- second, there is NO push from those in the gay movement, or from folks who support the fundamental goals of that movement, such as myself, to suppress ANY behavior of ANYONE around us within the community - no calls for outlawing heterosexal acts or domestic arrangements. You could, most uncarefully, say that we attempt to suppress too, and are thus equally bigoted, in seeking to suppress the rights of some faith group to establish law. But to argue that is to argue that your founders were bigoted in setting up any and all constitutional guarantees towards free expression, free association, and liberty of personhood.
Quote:The reason these opinions are not "sitting in balance" is because the position with which you disagree is in the majority. My opinion happens to be in the minority on this, but I don't need to demonize those with whom I disagree or pretend that it is wrong when they act politically to see their position win out.
Do you still maintain the first sentence here, scrat? All opinions are equal instances of bigotry (the term thus losing any meaning at all)? Or will you argue that 'bigotry' has meaning, but does not apply to what faith groups are doing here? If so, please carefully draw out your reasoning.
As to 'demonizing' those with whom I disagree, your use of that term is not appropriate as there is nothing I've said which corresponds with the definition of the term (you can check). Unless, of course, you want to do the 'all opinions are equal' thing, thus all arguments against, or negative terms used in an arguments, are all equal examples of 'demonization'.
, better: they are in power, but do nothing against mercy killing, gay marriage...not that I want these things to change... call it: Dutch Christianity :wink:
