The anti-gay marriage movement IS homophobic

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.

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.

Big Guy, ya need to catch up! MOAN has said she would abstain from voting on this issue (if I had the chance to vote on it) because I do not want to discriminate in any way.

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.

Foxfyre is more than capable of handling herself so I will defer to her on this.

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.

Ya really need to catch up! It is no longer an issue of whether I am denying homosexuals their civil rights. So, am I still a homophobe and bigot becaue I think (believe) that homosexuality is wrong? And like I told Dys, your answer is going to have a lot to do with my next topic. :wink:

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.

Big Guy, ya need to catch up! MOAN has said she would abstain from voting on this issue (if I had the chance to vote on it) because I do not want to discriminate in any way.

Foxfyre is more than capable of handling herself so I will defer to her on this.

Ya really need to catch up! It is no longer an issue of whether I am denying homosexuals their civil rights. So, am I still a homophobe and bigot becaue I think (believe) that homosexuality is wrong? And like I told Dys, your answer is going to have a lot to do with my next topic.

MOAN wrote:

Big Guy, ya need to catch up! MOAN has said she would abstain from voting on this issue (if I had the chance to vote on it) because I do not want to discriminate in any way.

My name is not "Big Guy." You need to stop making things up. Your reamarks about not voting are not a response to your claim that your civil rights are diminished if homosexuals are granted the same civil rights as all other adults enjoy. You have never addressed that issue--and unless and until you can make a cogent, logical argument to that effect, which does no violence to the truth, you are guilty of peddling a canard. Your continued references to voting are strawmen, which have nothing to do with the denial of civil liberties to homosexuals, and which do not provide an answer to the question of why you claim your rights are diminished if homosexuals are granted the same civil rights as all adults.

Like I said before, if you or anyone else is going to give me grief about the way I vote or what I vote for, you are coming close to denying me the right to vote as I see fit. I may not have stated that exactly right or whatever. But, I am sure you get my drift.

Quote:

Foxfyre is more than capable of handling herself so I will defer to her on this.

I've never seen any evidence to support such a dubious contention. To date, Fox has never provided a ghost of a cogent argument for the contention that homosexual marriage diminishes her marriage.

Well, I've seen her in action. She can handle it. :wink:

Quote:

Ya really need to catch up! It is no longer an issue of whether I am denying homosexuals their civil rights. So, am I still a homophobe and bigot becaue I think (believe) that homosexuality is wrong? And like I told Dys, your answer is going to have a lot to do with my next topic.

No, i am following along far better than you, in fact. You're lagging really far behind, because you have never to date explained how granting full civil rights to homosexuals diminishes your rights. I have not labelled you with either a claim that you are a homophobe nor a bigot. However, i do consider that religiously fervent and fanatical people are almost always bigoted, and i've seen plenty of evidence at this site that you consider yourself to be the possessor of a special, superior understanding--which is a good working definition of bigotry. I have not, however, said you are a bigot. Rather, i work from the assumption that you lack the perception to see the source of the bigotry implicit in your religious paricularism and your insistence that homosexuals are condemned by your cartoon-character god. I could not five a **** what your next topic is going to be--i have not the least doubt that it will be another exercise in your favorite poofism, replete with "well, that's just what i believe," pointless recourse to dark blue bold face and idiotic emoticons.

Yes, I know. You do not directly call anyone anything. You do make it very clear however as to what you think. BTW what does five a sh*t mean? Nice save there!

So, does this mean you aren't going to answer my question? Since I am abstaining on this vote, am I still to be considered homophobic or bigoted?

So tell me Set, where in any of these 180+ pages has anyone from the "usual suspects" done any insulting of those who hold a different opinion than us? Please point me and I will admit you have a valid point. Yet, the very point of this entire, ridiculous thread is simply to paint anyone who disagrees with you as a bigot or homophobe. What are we given to believe? Why should I or anyone else attempt to discuss anything with any who continually rails that we are bigots and homophobes?

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!

Something tells me that tact will continue to lead to people voting for their states to keep marriage laws exactly as they always have been, just as many states have already done.

Uh-Oh, just so nobody thinks I am an illiterate homophobic bigot, I did mistakenly type "tact" when I meant "tack". Didn't catch that until afterward, and then it was too late. Oh well.

Setanta already answered your question, MA/

Like I said before, if you or anyone else is going to give me grief about the way I vote or what I vote for, you are coming close to denying me the right to vote as I see fit. I may not have stated that exactly right or whatever. But, I am sure you get my drift. [/quote

No, i deny your "drift." I haven't given you an ounce of grief about the way you vote, this is a strawman that you have erected, and keep desparately pushing forward, because you are either unwilling or unable to explain how a grant of full civil liberty to homosexuals diminishes your civil liberties. If one "comes close" to doing something, they still have not done what you attempt to accuse them of doing. No one here has ever proposed that your right to vote as you choose be infringed. Once again, you're making things up because you've painted yourself into a corner, and are incapable of supporting your thesis.

[quote]Well, I've seen her in action. She can handle it.

Yes, I know. You do not directly call anyone anything. You do make it very clear however as to what you think. BTW what does five a sh*t mean? Nice save there!

So, does this mean you aren't going to answer my question? Since I am abstaining on this vote, am I still to be considered homophobic or bigoted?

Roxxxanne Wrote:

Quote:

Setanta already answered your question, MA/

He did? Hmmmm, I must have missed it. Did he say yes or no?

because you are either unwilling or unable to explain how a grant of full civil liberty to homosexuals diminishes your civil liberties

Do you really think that just because you do not say "You (whoever) are a bigot and a homophobe" that you are not conveying that actual message?

Puh-leeze! We all know you are very intelligent. Do you think some of us so stupid that we can't recognize an insult when we see one?

You're human just like the rest of us. (all witless emoticons in this post removed in the interest of good taste)

Pfffft! . . . Really? I didn't see a yes or no anywhere. But, it's ok. I think I already know his answer.

MA, I really think that Setanta has brought up a good point that I would like to see you address much more fully than with a 'pfff.'

Namely, this one:

Quote:

because you are either unwilling or unable to explain how a grant of full civil liberty to homosexuals diminishes your civil liberties

Can you explain this? It seems that you are quite concerned with the protection of your rights, especially the right to your opinion and the right to vote.

Does this mean that you also believe in the right to equality under the law? This is a fundamental principle of our democratic system and a prerequiste for your right to vote. Do you believe that Homosexuals should be equal under the law, or not?

Cycloptichorn