On the Threshold of Bigotry

And I'm rather proud to be bigoted against suicide bombers.”HM

---

If you got some quince, Pussycat, I got a runcible spoon.

Wasn't God bigoted against Job? Wasn't Moses bigoted against the Egyptians? Wasn't Jesus bigoted against the money chargers in the temple? Wasn't Abraham Lincoln bigoted against the South? Wasn't Martin Luther King, Jr. bigoted against the KKK? Wasn't Babe Ruth bigoted against the Boston Red Sox? Wasn't Bill Clinton bigoted against those who oppose BJs from interns in the hall leading from the Oval Office?”HM

---

If you got some quince, Pussycat, I got a runcible spoon.

Yes, we are all judgmental creatures, whether we admit to it or not. And the calling of bigotry on such judgmental grounds can't be anything but a measure of the caller's own bigotry.”HM

---

If you got some quince, Pussycat, I got a runcible spoon.

This captures my whole point: the assignment of bigotry is entirely subjective, especially when it comes down to "gay marriage," which itself is not only subjective but an oxymoron to boot. However, RAZD, this statement of yours posted above could make you a mega-bigot!”HM

---

If you got some quince, Pussycat, I got a runcible spoon.

Rrhain, have you been circumcised? I have, although they never asked for my permission, since I was a newborn when they did it. But, if I followed your logic to the T, all females should be circumcised at birth, too. What bigoted country's medical institution would discriminately issue circumcisions to boys and not girls? Who could be so bigoted as to suggest that what's good for males is not good for females? Could it be that, somehow in the strange workings of our legal system, males are considered different from females? Is that legal? Is it even moral?Rrhain, this is a blatant case of sexual inequality. You need to jump on it right away.”HM Edited by Hoot Mon, : No reason given.

---

If you got some quince, Pussycat, I got a runcible spoon.

Stile, again, it's your awkward play on subjectivity. How would you objectively resolve the issue? By calling "marriage" a civil union between same sexes when it objectively is NOT? How could anyone be so subjective? And should we elect a POTUS by some other means than a vote? A fiat, perhaps? Would that be anymore objective?”HM

---

If you got some quince, Pussycat, I got a runcible spoon.

Let me see if I can clean up this mess. We disagree on what is objective and what is subjective in lawmaking. I'm saying that changing the legal definition of "marriage" for the convenience of a minority group of homosexuals is subjective. I'm saying that preserving the meaning of "marriage" for the vast majority of heterosexuals is objective; you're saying it is not. Is it objective to call a bicycle a bicycle? Yes! And it is objective to call a tricycle a bicycle? No! (Why is this so goddamn difficult?) I'm not against DPs for gays. I don't oppose legalized civil unions for them. I only oppose what they call it, because calling a "tricycle" a "bicycle" doesn't make it a bicycle. But I have, and you have rejected it on subjective grounds. You can't see objectively that I do not oppose legalizing gay DPs. I only oppose the obvious thorn in the claw of this monster: "Marriage" does not mean anything you want it to mean. In all objectivity, "marriage" means a civil union between a man and a woman. How much more objective can that be? If you go fishing a catch a cod, but you wanted to catch a bass instead, then you can go ahead and call your cod a bass you want to. Won't bother me a bit...until you insist that the law should change its wording to make bass out of cods. That would be a very subjective thing to do. No? Dah...I don't think so. And I'm an objective thinker, too. I agree. But do they need to call it a "marriage" to do that? No. You have it completely in reverse. Raw subjectivity is bad enough, but inverted raw subjectivity is an abomination. But I don't oppose legalizing gay DPs.Stile, in truth, we're both subjective in each other eyes. But that's not the real issue here. The real issue is about which one of us deserves to be call a "bigot." I've even gone so far as to suggest that maybe God was a bigot for His discriminatory treatment of Job. My point there was that any accusation of bigotry is a subjective act. Can't people have differing POVs without being called bigots?So, we're back to my propose Rule #1 from Message 44: You can measure bigotry in the noise made by those who accuse others of it.”HM

---

If you got some quince, Pussycat, I got a runcible spoon.

gruber, that's a good post for #1. Correct, except that we don't just have a rose here, we have a rose and a sweet potato. Do you think and a man and man = a man and a woman. All I'm saying is that a man and a woman can get "married" in accordance to the meaning of the word, but because a man and a man can't get "married," exactly, they ought to be able to get civilly united if they choose, so as to gain all the legal rights and benefits married heterosexuals enjoy. And let them come with own name for it, too, because "marriage" is already taken. Nicely done, but false. That's because I'm counting the wheels.”HM

---

If you got some quince, Pussycat, I got a runcible spoon.

Not bad. I wouldn't want to quibble over naming fruits and vegetables while people are starving to death. But I wouldn't give them a carrot and call it an apple just because they're hungry. I would try to educate them, too. Vocabulary matters.

quote:

---

Words strain, crack, and sometimes break under the burden.

​

”T. S. Eliot

---

”HM

---

If you got some quince, Pussycat, I got a runcible spoon.

Perfect! I know even less about marriage than I know about woman. Three marriages were enough for me to learn never to try it again. I would have been better off being a homosexual, but I would have preferred to be a lesbian over the other kind. It surely would beat having sex with a man. And some of those lesbians are hot little numbers.”HM

But I'm for equal rights for gays. I'm for legalizing their domestic partnerships. I don't want to see gays deprived of anything. And I don't want to see those who believe "marriage" is between only a man and a woman deprived of their traditional values they happen to believe in. So, how do you solve the problem and dispel all the bigotry? By getting the government out of the business of marriage. The government's business is about civil unions; the churches' business is about marriages. That's where the rub is.Thus, to solve the matter fairly, I side with those who say let the government do its business and let the churches theirs. And all those who are bothered by the government marrying homosexuals will no longer have a case against it; they'll have to storm the churches, and I won't have to care twit about it.I did not originate this brilliant concept. Someone else on these boards came up with the idea, and I saw as a way to drive a wooden stake through the heart of bigotry. (Funny thing, though, many homosexuals are bigoted against it.)”HM

---

If you got some quince, Pussycat, I got a runcible spoon.

I'm not coming anywhere near you, Rrhain. I don't know which would be worse: you actually performing a circumcision on me, or you just fumbling around with my unit before hand. Thank you for confirming that you believe neither sex should be circumcised. That's consistent with your POV. Now, what to do about male circumcision? I'm definitely glad they circumcised me, even if they didn't ask me first. I'm sorry they didn't get to you. Don't your lovers complain about the additional health hazard of an unsanitary foreskin? Any Jewish lovers in your date book?”HM

---

If you got some quince, Pussycat, I got a runcible spoon.

Because race and sexual orientation are as different as Mars and a tomato. You forgot to include these inequalities, too: children and sexual orientation, multiple spouses and sexual orientation, and other species and sexual orientation. True, I have not explained it well enough to convince you. But do I also need to explain why men shouldn't use the lady's room? Do I need to explain why a man shouldn't be allowed to marry his daughter or his dog? Do I need to explain why public nudity is immoral? (Nudists feel the heat of such bigotry all the time.) True again. I demand urinals in all mens' public restrooms, and I don't need no stinkin' women squatting over them, either. Boy, am I bigot for my bigoted POV! Oh, Rrhain, you just can't seem to get on board this logical bus. The truth is that I desire for gays exactly what I desire for myself: a heterosexual marriage and a semi-annual visit to the tooth dentist.”HM

---

If you got some quince, Pussycat, I got a runcible spoon.

OK, let's feed the starving man a tomato. But let's not tell him first what it is; let's just say it's good for him and that he doesn't need to know what it is. "Just shut up, starving man, and eat what I'm feeding you!" But don't starving men have equal rights, too? Isn't there something called the "Freedom of Information Act"? Would you deprive a starving man of all of his legal rights just because he's starving?”HM

---

If you got some quince, Pussycat, I got a runcible spoon.

Jazzns, you're right about being OT, but wrong about being a myth. From Cervical Cancer in Female Partners of Uncircumcised Men:

quote:

---

A number of studies have documented higher rates of cervical cancer in women who have had one or more male sexual partners who were uncircumcised. Whereas the earlier studies were somewhat equivocal the evidence from a recent large international study published in the New England Journal of Medicine, to be discussed later, now provides overwhelming evidence of the link between lack of male circumcision and cervical cancer in the female sexual partner.

---

”HM

---

If you got some quince, Pussycat, I got a runcible spoon.