On the Threshold of Bigotry

But maybe he's allergic to tomatoes. He could sue you over that.”HM

---

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

Are you a hot lesbian, 2no? NTTIAWWT. And is it bigoted for me to ask?”HM

---

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

2no, I'm sorry about your perception of an insult. It obviously was wrong for me to ask. But, dudette, you have suggested, at least to me in several posts, that your sexual orientation is south of normal. Hey, did I ever say it's wrong? I'm even banging the gong for your civil liberties. You've got your panties in a bunch over this, and I had nothing to do with it. This is not the first time you have said I should be shot. Should I be insulted by that, or should I hire an attorney to defend me against your threats on my life?BTW: You can go ahead and ask me if I'm a hetero. I won't be insulted.”HM

---

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

But you never answered my question, Rrhain. It is right or wrong or bigoted to circumcise males and not females? It would seem to me to be as wrong as a pharmacist withholding Plan B from a woman who needs it, even though Plan B be has nothing whatsoever to do with circumcision.We may disagree over what is objective and what is subjective, but how do you measure this statement for either one?

quote:

---

We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish justice, insure domestic Tranquility, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Prosperity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United Satetes of America.

---

"...to form a more perfect Union"?"...establish justice"?"...promote the general Welfare"?"...secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves"?How utterly subjective are those ordinations in the eyes of those who were deprived of them! And how utterly objective are they in the eyes of those who reaped the benefits!”HM

---

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

Here’s a perfect example of bigoted foolishness: the ultra-fuss made by gays, claiming that Nike’s new ad is homophobic.Will somebody please close that closet door.”HM

---

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

Rrhain, do you really believe that Nike was using calculated homophobia to sell its sneakers? Jesus, you guys have everyone walking on egg shells! Why, the next time I see an NFL linebacker stick his head in the groin of the other team's halfback I'm going to shout: "Hey, all you bigoted hetero dudes, better what out for homophobia!"And when the quarterback puts his hands under the center's crotch I'm going yell: Don't fumble around in there too long, Bart, or some homophobic bigot will say you're a queer!Rrhain, don't you see just how ridiculous this "homophobia" business has gotten to be? You're so jacked up on homophobia you can't see the world objectively. Objectively, the world didn't give a hoot about homophobia until you gays ran it up the flag pole. Now we're all homophobes just for for asking: How can two men marry each other? Doesn't that contradict the meaning of marriage? And why am I a bigot for bringing it up? For the love of Chuck and Larry, has the world gone mad?”HM

---

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

And that's all it is, gruber”just an opinion. Do the gays have any more than that to bring to the table? Is calling "homophobia" on everything they find objectionable anything other than reverse bigotry? I think they are entitled to their opinions, of course. At some point, though, we're going to be hearing from other special groups of people who also want to come out of closet: polygamists, pedophiles and the rest. And they'll all want to get married, too. Why are their opinions and desires any less important than those of gays?I think in all these threads about gays and bigotry I've proven an important point: the gays are out after a titular prize”"marriage"”and they intend to steal it from the heterosexuals. For my proof I offer the repeated observation (from these threads) that the gays would not be completely satisfied with all the rights and privileges of legalized civil unions, they also want to mutate the meaning of marriage for their vain purposes. What is the dollar value in loss of liberties for a gay couple to be civilly united by the law but denied the title of marriage under the law? Why can't "marriage" be something only heteros do when they get civilly united, and "_______" be something only gays do when they get civilly united? Even Steven”equal rights all around. Honestly, I just don't see how anybody is harmed by this. I just cannot ignore the very basic difference between a heterosexual marriage and a homosexual whatever. It's the biggest old elephant in the room I've ever seen.”HMEdited by Hoot Mon, : No reason given.

---

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

Probably. But I think it would be more fair this way than to have the government dabbling in the business of marriage when its true mission should be only to issue legalized civil unions. The First Amendment is friendly to this idea. And churches benefit, too. The Mormon Church is already doing the equivalent of this for polygamy. Best of all, the government gets completely shut out of our bedrooms. It's a win-win all around. And Mr. and Mr. Chuck and Larry can be just as married as Mr. and Mrs. John and Jane. Talk about a Progressive concept! (And I didn't author it, either, but I can't remember who did.)”HMEdited by Hoot Mon, : Mr. for Mrs.

---

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

No, the ad was saying: "I so dominate you I can make you make you want to buy my sneakers." I don't recall anyone saying anything about sucking dick. Maybe you have a fixation about dick sucking. Slurp, gag, slurp! What is about marriage that makes gays feel they should qualify for it? And here's you likely response: 'What is about marriage that makes blacks feel they should qualify for it?' Rrhain, you need correction at several levels of bigotry. WRONG! I demand EXACTLY for everyone what I demand for myself. It is you who demands for your special-interest group a contortion of the marriage institution. I have no such demands. And for you to say that I do makes you a bigot of first order. (But I stand in defense of your homophilic bigotry, just as I stand in defense of anyone's preferred sexuality, whether or not he or she got that way naturally.)”HM

---

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

I was a high-school wrestler who made it to the state finals. Stuck my head and hands into many young men's crotches, grabbed them by their balls, threw them down and tried to pressed them into submission. Won some and lost some. And all the while I NEVER thought about having sex with them.But if it had been a pretty boy like you, Rrhain, I might asked you for a date instead of crushing your nuts in a crotch lock. Are you sure about this, pretty boy? I've got a slick move for you called the Lorena Bobbit tooth lock. Cruelty knows no bounds, you manly masher. Oh, well, tomorrow is another day.”HM

Rrhain, my frilly friend, my diagnosis for your embarrassing condition is retrohomophilaphobia. Your latest symptom is your self-serving misinterpretation of a sneaker ad. You wear your nerves on the outside of your skin. So, I suggest you stay away from sports altogether. (But I should think you would embrace the "context" of two men having sex with each other in the middle of a basketball game.) I'm not obsessed, just curious if you have any. Could you post a picture?”HM Edited by Hoot Mon, : Just trying to help Rrhain reach his fullest potential.

---

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

Good question, Mod. Yes, we agree that anti-miscegenation laws are bigoted. We agree that the intermarriage of races should not be prohibited. But why? Why should a black man be allowed to marry a white woman? Who decides what should and shouldn't be? The "criteria" you ask for are liable to be loaded with subjectivity.Why shouldn't the man next door be allowed to raise Labrador Retriever puppies for barbecuing purposes? Why do we allow cage fighting between humans, but prohibit it for dogs and chickens? Anyone who might oppose those actions could be labeled a bigot, depending entirely upon people's attitudes and opinions of the times.So, what criterion differentiates a prohibition of interracial marriage from a prohibition of gay marriage? It is the criterion of subjective judgement, applied on a temporal landscape with shifting thresholds of bigotry. In all honesty, I have no trouble whatsoever with a black man marrying a white woman. But it is apparently to my highly bigoted discredit that I cannot see how a black man, or one of any other race, can marry another man. Someone needs to drop a 2x4 on my head and wake me up”I must be slumbering in Bigotland.Personally, I don't believe I've crossed the threshold of bigotry because of this. But others do. Do you suppose that every threshold of bigotry has the same operative criteria? Could it be anything other than the subjective attitudes and opinions of the times?”HM

---

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

Perhaps you missed the test I performed on this and other threads to expose the real sentiments behind "gay marriage." I went on record to support legalizing civil unions for gays”domestic partnerships that are as comprehensive for them as they are for heteros”with the only difference being titular: straights get married under the law, gays get domestic partnerships. But, wait, there was a problem with that: some gays wanted to get titularly married, too, and some straights said that's not what marriage was intended to mean.Test result: The gays are out to steal a titular prize from the straights, even after they are hypothetically granted full-on domestic partnerships that are equal those of straights.Subsequently, to accommodate both sides, I proposed that we get the law out of the business of marriage: let the churches decide who gets married and let the law decide who gets civilly united. And I, who opposes legalizing the titularity of "gay marriage" because I regard it as an oxymoron, would not be affected by whatever the churches decide to do. As it is right now, they worship statues of a dead man hanging grimly from a cross, and I wouldn't want any part of that. So, I don't have to be party to that if I don't want to, but I have be party to the law whether I like it or not.And for my efforts to find equanimity on this issue I get called a bigot. This is why I proposed, in Message 44, the Threshold of Bigotry Rule #1: 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.

But I don't care what they want to call it; I only care what the law calls it”simply because I won't have to be part of it if it's a church or whatever. Do you care about who gets to be a 32nd degree Mason? I don't, because I don't belong to the Masons. I only care about the laws that affect me. But I wouldn't care if pet hospitals, tattoo parlors, and expresso stands got into the business of "marriage." All I would care about is the legality of any civil union, which is precisely the government's business. How? Everybody is absolutely equal in my preferred arrangement. Where would the "same but different" problem have any legs. If Chuck and Larry, under my preferred arrangement, told me they got married in a Las Vega casino right after they got their DP status certified by the government, I wouldn't have any problem with that. And, by the same token, if John and Mary told me they got married in a Universalist Church, right after they got their DP status certified by the law, I would not be bothered either. It would be the same law, under my preferred arrangement, and it wouldn't include the word "marriage," only the words "civil union." In view of what I have said above, I don't see how you can make that claim. And it's OT anyway.This thread is about the threshold of bigotry. Let me ask you if you think I qualify as a bigot for my opinion of what "marriage" really means, and for my preferred arrangement”i.e., getting the law out of it.”HM

---

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

Agreed. The heteros will eventually have to move over and let the homos into their marriage game. That'll be good for the homos, but not necessarily so for the heteros. Why? Because some of them have crossed over the threshold of bigotry? Maybe.But, Mod, I can't believe you are equating interracial marriage with gay marriage. It's a false analogy. Marriage is a civil union between the sexes of any race or races; it's where a man and woman get hitched, because nature provides them with the marriageable hitching equipment, no matter what race they come from.Why do the gays have to be just like the straights? They don't have the marriageable equipment. Why can't they just be like themselves? Are they feeling inadequate or something? Why can't they be civilly united without being married? Gosh, I feel silly for asking these questions. Are we still in third grade? If that's all it is then why can't gays give it a rest? (Answer: Because they're after the titular prize.)”HM