Setanta wrote:I can think of quite a few better ways to spend your life than tryin' to give us a bad name.
Perhaps it is really just you that I am after...
Wake me up if it ever gets interesting . . .
Momma Angel wrote:Debra_Law Wrote:
Quote:Momma Angel can vote any way she wants on any issue placed on the ballot. In America, we don't discriminate against bigots. They have just as much right to vote as the non-bigots. That is not in question.
Well, it's nice to know that you would let bigots have their vote Debra. When I run into one, I'll let them know. 
The fact that she claims that no one can say she's wrong for being a bigot simply because she wraps her bigotry in the right to vote is hilarious.
You can say I am wrong for the way I vote all you want. You can deny it all you want that you can base your vote on what you want just as well as I can. Should I call you a bigot or discriminatory if you vote differently than me?
The fact that she has announced that she would cast her vote to discriminate against an entire class of people whom she despises and to deprive them of the basic rights that she claims for herself tells me she's not the kind of person that I would choose as my friend. Bigotry is disgusting.
I just love it when someone else puts words to my emotions! I do not despise anyone. Instead of reading my posts for what they actually say, I get the feeling you read them for what you want them to say.
And the fact that so many seem to have just totally ignored my post that said I would abstain from voting on this because I did not want to discriminate in any way tells me quite a lot. It seems that some might actually want to feel I am a bigot or a homophobe and not give me the benefit of a doubt that I might actually learn how someone else might feel and adjust my way of thinking. At least dlowan (I thin that's who it is) recognized that I would abstain.
I even asked a poster on this board that says they are homosexual how they felt and they did not feel I was discriminating against homosexuals. Hmmm. I kind of figured they would know since they are involved in this issue. So, I decided IF I had the chance to vote on gay marriage I would ABSTAIN so as not to discriminate at all.
So, now, will you call me a bigot because I won't vote yes instead? Or are you going to just leave it at that? If that is not good enough for you, then I submit you are doing more than just trying to discuss an issue.
Don't be upset Momma.
Liberals like DLAW actually think they are smater than anyone and refuse to accept differing opinions. DLAW is nothing more than a limo-liberal. You keep on holding to your beliefs.
Momma, it is quite simple. As long as you believe homosexuality is a sin and not something to be wholeheartedly embraced as wholesome and just, you will be labeled a homophobic bigot by most of those on these boards. Name-calling rather than persuasion is how they choose to champion their cause. Get used to it.
That's right Coastal.
I do not necessarilly agree with Mommas position, but I value her opinion and would never criticize her for believing that way.
Many hard core Limo Liberals like DLAW would never feel this way and since they could never make a convincing argument that might have one change their view, they resort to name calling. See, they really are not that smart after all, are they!
can't we all just agree to disagree? (immense sarcasm)
Yes. I don't agree that homosexuality is a sin. But because I understand why some can sincerely believe this without causing or intending any harm to gay people and because I oppose changing the definition of marriage, I am labeled homophobic, bigoted, and wanting to deny rights to others.
Some people believe that tolerance should be uniformlyapplied. And some believe that only those that agree with them are worthy of tolerance.
dys,
That is exactly what I am talking about. Unless I change my mind and agree with Debra_Law and others and say homosexuality is ok then I will be labeled. Why? Because you say so?
I will not change my beliefs. I agreed to abstain so as not to discriminate in any way against homosexuals. So, now what? You are going to call me homophobic and bigot just because I think homosexuality is wrong? Don't you think perhaps your attitude might be misconstrued as trying to shove this down someone's throat? Just because we disagree?
What's next? No more freedom of speech?
woiyo, Foxfyre, CoastalRat,
Thank you for your encouragement.
Foxfyre wrote:Yes. I don't agree that homosexuality is a sin. But because I understand why some can sincerely believe this without causing or intending any harm to gay people and because I oppose changing the definition of marriage, I am labeled homophobic, bigoted, and wanting to deny rights to others.
The problem is not people having a belief. The problem is that some act to force their belief upon others and this does cause harm.
The reluctance to "change the definition of marriage" is a red herring. It is most obvious from the propositions that have been brought forward in various states the issue and denial of rights is far more encompassing.
ma of course you are free to think homosexuality is wrong just as you are free to think curly haired afro-american men are sex machines. Noone really cares, what some do care about is the attitude of restricting the rights of some people because of your personal beliefs "I may be liberal to a degree but if you think I'd let Barry Goldwater move-in next door or marry my daughter, you must be crazy"
The problem you and others refuse to accept is that nobody is forcing a "belief" upon anyone else. You can "believe" all you want that gay marriage should be legal. I (among other) can "believe" all I want that it should not be. What eventually becomes law is not going to force either one of us to change our "beliefs", only to accept the legality of one or the other.
As has been stated many times, this is not strictly a religious fight. Many people of faith support gay marriage. Many people of non-faith (or non-practicing faith) are against gay marriage. Being against an issue is not bigotry, homophobia or any other name you and others choose to assign to those who disagree with you. And as I have stated in this thread much earlier, it does your cause a severe injustice to continue to assert that it is bigotry or homophobia rather than concentrating on changing the views of those who "believe" differently than you.
Momma Angel wrote:dyslexia wrote:ma of course you are free to think homosexuality is wrong just as you are free to think curly haired afro-american men are sex machines. Noone really cares, what some do care about is the attitude of restricting the rights of some people because of your personal beliefs "I may be liberal to a degree but if you think I'd let Barry Goldwater move-in next door or marry my daughter, you must be crazy"
So, is my decision to abstain from voting (as if I would ever get to vote on it) on this issue good enough for you? Would you still consider me bigoted and homophobic or not?
NEVER ABSTAIN!!! Go and vote what you think is right.
Momma Angel wrote:dyslexia wrote:ma of course you are free to think homosexuality is wrong just as you are free to think curly haired afro-american men are sex machines. Noone really cares, what some do care about is the attitude of restricting the rights of some people because of your personal beliefs "I may be liberal to a degree but if you think I'd let Barry Goldwater move-in next door or marry my daughter, you must be crazy"
So, is my decision to abstain from voting (as if I would ever get to vote on it) on this issue good enough for you? Would you still consider me bigoted and homophobic or not?
Momma, that is like saying if you don't vote for a presidential candidate, then you can't be called a republican (or democrat as the case may be). You will still be called bigot and homophobic simply based on your beliefs, not what you vote for. You might as well accept that.
Understood CoastalRat and I agree 100%. I am just trying to pin something down here. I am told that "because I would deny the rights of homosexuals by voting against this" I am homophobic. I want to know if what they are actually looking for is me not to discriminate or them just to believe they are right.
The way I see it, ya can't have your cake and eat it too. So, what is it dys? I am now homophobic just because I believe homosexuality is wrong even though I would not use that belief to vote against this issue? Or are you now telling me I am just wrong for holding that belief in the first place?
182 pages and no one has offered a single valid reason to oppose marriage equality that isn't based on fear, prejudice or ignorance.
MOAN claims that granting equal civil rights to homosexuals diminishes her rights--but provides not even a cogent argument that this is so, let alone any evidence. Fox claims that homosexual marriage diminishes her marriage, but provides no cogent argument, nor any evidence. Fox makes a dull-witted attempt to claim that: ". . . because I oppose changing the definition of marriage, I am labeled homophobic, bigoted, and wanting to deny rights to others." Certainly rights are denied to others when they are not allowed the same civil liberties as everyone else because of a special category into which they are shoved based on sexual preference. That may or may not be bigoted, dependant upon whether the civil liberties obstructionists consider their own sexual preference superior--for which there is a good deal of inferential evidence. An abhorence of homosexuality may well arise from homophobia, and again, the inferential evidence is strong. Then Fox regales us with more drivel, with a claim that: "Some people believe that tolerance should be uniformlyapplied. And some believe that only those that agree with them are worthy of tolerance." The tone is accusatory, but as is the case with the stupidity which contends that allowing homosexual marriage diminishes her marriage, she not only provides no evidence that people here only believe in tolerance toward those with whom they agree, she does not even provide a cogent argument to that effect.
The the nasty, right-wing "usual suspects" coming running up, to lay about them with blanket slurs and specific insults, all the while advancing the hilariously hypocritical contention that those with whom they disagree only deal in insults, and not arguments. Neither Woiyo nor Coastal Rat provide an argument to suggest that granting full civil rights to homosexuals diminishes the rights of anyone else, so one can only assume that they are projecting, and that they are, in fact, themselves the ones who deal in insults rather than debate.
