Is It Bigoted To Have A Supported Opinion?

I'm goign to just slightly change this for you: When I change the word "gays" to "interracial couples," that statement becomes very obviously racist.Do you perhaps see why indeed, questioning a basic human right on the shear basis of sexual orientation is the very definition of bigotry?The fact that you don;t support enshrining your bigotry in law makes you a little better than those who do......but if somebody said "white folks shouldn't marry coloreds, that's indecent," you'd easily see why that person was a racist bigot.You;re doing exactly the same thing with gays. There is no difference, none at all, except that the target of your bigotry is a sexual orientation rather than a skin color.

I'm fairly certain that we are talking exclusively about relationships between consenting adults. At least, I am.You;re right that discrimination is not wrong - but discrimination without an actual basis beyond "sexual orientation" or "skin color" and so on is.Pedophilia involves a sexual participant that is not a consenting adult and therefore is rape each and every time. It misses the target by a pretty wide margin to compare that to homosexual sex between adults.Don;t fall for the bigots' arguments. Sure, they like to continue along saying "but what about a man and a toaster" or "a man and a dolphin" or "a man and a child." But those are all slippery slope arguments - logical fallacies. All we're talking about is a relationship between consenting adults, and making sure that social mores do not arbitrarily restrict those relationships. Edited by Rahvin, : No reason given.

The whole point was same sex relationships, Phat.You expressed that, while you think it should be legal, you believe that the church should "discourage" same-sex relationships.You view same-sex relationships as morally inferior to heterosexual relationships.If you want to talk about role models, well...when I look at the "role models" of today who say the same things you're saying, all I can see are clones of the bigots of yesteryear who used the same arguments practically to the letter to argue against interracial relationships. Even after it was conceded that such relationships should be legal, they were still "frowned upon" by the perpetuating bigots of the day...a legacy we still live with today in many areas, as shown recently on the news where a Southern High School just had their very first racially integrated Prom.You'll be remembered, Phat, with the same disdain that we all hold when we think of those racial-segregators.There is nothing at all, not even a little, wrong with same-sex relationships. They should be celebrated every bit as much as their heterosexual counterparts. Any "role model" who suggests to children that they should avoid the equally positive relationships of the same-sex variety is no good role model at all.

It's perfectly valid when A and B are actually interchangeable. Since in this case we're talking about similarly arbitrary characteristics (skin color, sexual orientation), the comparison is entirely valid. The "consenting adults" rationale is exactly what won the day in Loving v Virginia, and the entire debate over same-sex relationships mirrors almost identically the arguments of interracial marriage. This is a matter of simple fact. That's one tactic. In my case I simply chose to associate today's bigots with yesterday's bigots. It's easy, it's elegant, and it's completely appropriate given the arguments being used on both sides are the same.I do try not to. If you believe I've committed one, it would be helpful if you would name it and point out where.

Both true and false. I would consider a slave-owner from before the American Civil War to still be evil, even though the practice was morally accepted by society at the time. I see socially acceptable practices today that I find to be evil, and which I hope will eventually be considered by future society to be evil as well.One could say that the moral standards of a time are constantly changing, but those standards, if adopted, are constant throughout time. For instance, if slavery is evil, then it was always evil, and society has only recently become sufficiently enlightened to recognize it as such.Morality is about relative values, and not all moral systems are self-consistent. The American Founding Fathers extolled the virtues of free men, while simultaneously condemning other men to perpetual bondage.It appears that the evolution of social morality over time has been about redefining who should be included in the protections of ethical behavior, and in making the guidelines more self-consistent. The realization that slavery is immoral was not just a total change in social fabric, but rather the realization that the highly-regarded virtue of freedom had a rather glaring inconsistency.This is meaningless blather, Phat. Not a single word in these sentences combines to form any cogent though or meaning outside of your perpetual navel-gazing. "...stepped out of eternity into time" is perhaps one of the most absurd phrases I've heard in at least the last month. As has been mentioned, there's a rather glaring absence of rules against slavery in the Ten Commandments. In fact, the Hebrew Law in Leviticus explains in significant detail the rules by which a man may own slaves; regulating slavery is nt in any fashion the same as banning the practice. Indeed, by setting rules for its practice as opposed to its criminalization, your deity expressly permits slavery. Irrelevant. Within your premise "God" also "created us" to be of differing races. Reasons? Did it ever occur to you that nonsensical apologetics based upon the compiled ancient texts of societies that existed thousands of years ago may not be the best source for a system of morality?By locking yourself into the moral values of stone-age nomads, you restrict yourself from becoming better than they were. If you hold your ancient texts as morally supreme, you can never improve upon them, and must reject even an objectively superior idea. It's no different from Faith's rejection of virtually every discipline of science in holding to a young Earth - you just adhere to the outdated and demonstrably inferior values of the same books.

...you have so much garbage in this post it's difficult to see where to start.A good parent just wants their child to be happy. A good parent would be happy for his/her child if the child found a partner who makes the child happy and fulfilled, regardless of the race, religion, hair color, or gender of that partner."partying like a rock star, doing bongs, and having group sex" never even enters the picture here.You have some twisted and ineffective ideas about how to be a role model, Phat. All you'll do is teach a child to be ashamed of his/her feelings, and to worry about daddy's disapproval. You'll damage the parent-child relationship, possibly irreparably, as well as the child's own sense of self-esteem and chances of a happy life outcome, all over worrying over which set of genitalia might be present in your potential child-in-law.It's utterly ridiculous.

While I have heard fellatio described as "cock worship," I really think you're just taking the piss.I mean seriously. Idolatry? A blow job?

You say that like it somehow makes you not a bigot.It doesn't.It's entirely possible for the "Word of God" or your interpretation thereof to be completely bigoted.Here's the thing, Phat - if you see anything remotely wrong with being homosexual as opposed to heterosexual, you're a bigot. Pure and simple.Same as if you considered there to be anything remotely wrong with being black as opposed to being white. You'd be a bigot then, too.If you think your responsibility as a "role model" is to discourage homosexual relationships, you're a bigot.If you think your responsibility as a "role mode" is to discourage interracial relationships, you're a bigot.If you think that the "Word of God" compels you to do any of the above...you're still a bigot. None of your hand-waving or navel gazing or rationalizing has made even a little bit of difference.What makes you a bigot is very simple: you believe that some superficial classes of people are superior to others. You believe that heterosexual relationships are superior to homosexual ones. The distinction for those classes is without any actual basis beyond "my religion tells me so." You cannot point to an actual reason, like "children raised by gays are horribly damaged" or "homosexual relationships are toxic." Instead, what actually happens is that when people act on beliefs like yours, they damage others, by considering them to be "less" on the simple basis of their sexual orientation. You damage their self-esteem. You treat them like an enemy. You tell them that they should feel ashamed of who they are. All for no real reason other than the fact that you think two men having sex is icky.You're a bigot, Phat. You've failed to justify your bigotry. Utterly. If you don't like being labelled a bigot, you could always try not being a bigot.

If your beliefs were facts, Phat, you'd be able to prove them.It's just that simple.Maybe instead of rambling on about your delusions, you could just try not being a bigot?