Is It Bigoted To Have A Supported Opinion?

Is this a serious question? It's bigoted to be a bigot. Why should anyone care about your justification? Rationalizing is a part of what bigots do. Very few people are evil in their own mind.Really, you'd almost have to believe that Jesus never walked the earth to come up with some of this stuff.

As stated, your position is inconsistent. But perhaps we can rescue your position by acknowledging that some things can be seen to be wrong or illegal per se, while other things are wrong simply because somebody finds them icky and passes a law enshrining their displeasure into law. Example homicide vs. homosexuality.There are a number of acceptable ways to categorize such behavior (does it hurt other people, does it infringes on the rights of others, does it use up community resources), but just because some behavior making me hold my nose simply does not cut it. And then there is the point that the punishment has nothing to do with the crime itself. I'd consider that to be an indicator that the morality train is derailed.Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.

Yes. That and the fact that the pattern of the argument works equally well for discrimination that we all accept as bigotry, like not allowing marriage between people of different faiths, races, or ethnic origin. Hopefully these arguments will one day will be era relics like the 'Lost Cause' and the state's 'duty' to maintain racial purity.The argument is, in essence, that if one cannot discriminate gay people, then you ought to be able to marry your underage daughter.

That's a real tough interpretation to defend. After removing the Hebrews from bondage and then doing 40 years of nation building out in the wilderness, you might have anticipated plenty of some opportunity to rub some of the rough edges off.Perhaps those Hebrews filtered God's word through their own ideas of right and wrong. It wouldn't be the last time that anyone did that.

I understand wanting to preserve your culture, but what 'race' are people from India?In previous discussions we've talked about how racial divisions are artificial, but the race of people from India is surely one of the more artificial of the artificial divisions.

Now that you mention it, perhaps the idea of preserving your culture is pretty silly as well. If you are one of the last few survivors speaking some language, then I can see not wanting your language to disappear from earth, but is that really something that's at risk when an American marries someone from India? Can't the 1 billion other Indians do that or hundred's of millions of Americans that aren't your kids?

Lowering the pileEdited by NoNukes, : No reason given.Edited by NoNukes, : ah phat....

Despite the disclaimer, I'd suggest that Godwin's postulate has been invoked. Nazi comparisons are almost always over the top. Great example. Although I find it totally cool that we do know exactly who did write it and approximately when, you are right that it is valuable for other reasons that it's authorship. I take some issue with this as a blanket statement. In many cases, the authors of books in the Bible are third parties uninvolved in the events that they describe, and the actual identity of the author is of almost no importance. For example, I'd argue that the authorship of Job is completely irrelevant to whatever value is offered by the text.Of course for Bible literalist, every tiny detail of authorship is of heightened importance. There is no real case to be made.I believe the real motivation for bigotry, is that Phat and his ilk find what gays do to be 'icky' (with the possible exception of deeds done by really hot lipsticks) and thus are willing to focus on Bible interpretations prohibiting the practice while ignoring clear prohibitions on the stuff they themselves do.I'll admit to finding gay sex 'icky' myself. I also find runny eggs to be icky, so I don't eat them, rather than taking the step of campaigning to make eating such eggs unconstitutional.