On the Threshold of Bigotry

For the love of god, NJ, this has been explained to you repeatedly...over and over again...time after time...yet you keep ignoring what we have so patiently explained to you and keep saying the same stupid thing repeatedly...over and over again...time after time?Bigotry is not based on disagreeing with someones opinion. It is not based on ones Freedom of Speech. Disagreeing with someones opinion is not bigotry, nor is it intolerance. You know this though, as it has been explained to you so many fucking times that for you to bring it up your rather weak argument yet again shows that either you do not read what others post, or you purposefully ignore what is written just so you can attempt to "score" some points for your side.

You become a bigot when you ACT (or want to act) to deny someone something that you yourself are not denied. If disagreeing with someone is all it took to be a bigot, then as you state, everyone would be a bigot..and then of what value is the word? It becomes meaningless. It takes some sort of additional "action(s)" to move from disagreement into bigotry.For example...disagreeing with homosexual marriage does not make you a bigot. Wanting to deny someone the right to marriage because they are homosexual does make you a bigot.Thinking that homosexual marriage is wrong does not make you intolerant. Wanting to prevent two consenting adults from getting married just because they both happen to be male, makes you intolerant.Now do you see?But again...this has been explained probably at least ten times just by me alone...never mind how many additional times that others (especially Rrhain) have explained this to you, and Hoot Mon, and Artemis Entreri, and Catholic Scientist. And every time a thread like this comes up...you guys conveniently forget...over and over and over again...what bigotry means.

OK, now you're just being an ass. Since, as you admit, you cannot deny someone their race, then obviously it's a stupid (i.e. impossible) comparison to bring up. You are a bigot, however, if you want to deny one race (or another) something that you are not denied...and base this upon their race. Like...oh gee...I don't know...maybe saying something like blacks cannot drink out of the same drinking fountain as whites...or that blacks cannot sit in the same seats on a bus as white people. You know, things like that. Or maybe locking someone up in a detention camp based solely on their race. But you cannot be intolerant with words alone Nemesis Juggernaut. You have to actually DO (or want to do) SOMETHING to express that intolerance or again, it has no meaning.Can you really see no difference between not liking homosexual marriage and wanting to deny homosexuals the right to marry. Are you really that dense? Basically yes. Is there a legitimate reason to deny prisoners the right to marry...other than the simple fact that they are indeed prisoners? None that I can think of. So denying prisoners their basic right (as defined by SCOTUS) to marry, simply because you dislike prisoners and don't want to allow them to get married would make you a bigot. Denying homosexual marriage was only an example. Did I say anywhere that the only form of bigotry on the planet was in denying homosexual marriage? Why are you being such an asshole? Bullshit. You bring up impossibilities (denying race) and then use them as examples to disprove a premise that I never brought up. I pulled this little gem out of your opening paragraph so I could deal with it individually. What in the fuck are you talking about? How the hell to you come to this rather absurd conclusion based on anything I said? Did you forget that part where mentioned that you had to do something?Look, Nemesis Juggernaut...try reading this time...disliking Asians does not make you a bigot. That's not that same as saying that you cannot ever become a bigot however. Denying Asians the same basic human rights that you are afforded is certainly one way that you could become a bigot. Lock em up in a detention camp because they're Asians, and yes, I would call you a bigot. Deny them housing in your neighborhood because they're Asian (or black, or homosexual), and yes...I'd call you a bigot. But just saying you hate Asians would not, in and of itself, make you a bigot.

It's not my definition. It's that you guys can't seem to understand what the definition means. I'm just trying to explain what, to everyone else, is a simple concept. You can try to deny your bigotry all you want. You can call me a bigot all you want. It doesn't change anything. Disagreeing with someone does not, in and of itself, make you a bigot. It's really quite simple.Look, I'm sorry that you and NJ and and HM, AE are bigots when it comes to homosexuals. Truly I am. I would like nothing more than for you guys to simply agree that there is no reason, whatsoever, to deny homosexuals the right to marry one another. But for your own personal reasons, you guys seem to think that gays should not allowed to get married (I know, I know...you keep saying you don't care, but at the same time you're in favor of laws that prevent it from happening, so spare me if I don't believe you). I have no idea why...but it doesn't matter. You want to deny one group of people a right that you have. That makes you a bigot. I disagree with you...that does NOT make me a bigot. Man...talk about twisted logic. So let me see if I have this correct. We simply state that gays do not have the right to marry. This, of course, makes you a bigot. Then, when we find out that gays actually do have that right, so we draft some legislation, and re-define some terms in such a manner that it becomes impossible for gays to marry one another...and then by doing that, you can stop being a bigot, because now they no longer have that right? Nice one Catholic Scientist.You see, here's the problem with you rather bizarre way of trying to get around being a bigot, simply because you feel that gays do not have the right to marry. Some things are simply not available to others. I cannot, for example, give birth. Therefore, you could not be considered a bigot if you felt that I do not have the right to give birth. I do not have that right because it is physically impossible to have that right.Gays, however, are in no way blocked from being allowed to get married, except by people like yourself that find the idea repulsive, or against their religious believes, or are closet homosexuals that don't want to face up to that fact...or whatever. So for you to simply state that they do not have the right, doesn't really get you off the hook. Why don't they have that right? Well, because bigoted assholes drafted legislationa and re-defined some terms so that gay were denied that right. Or do you have some other reason as to why gays should be denied the right to marry one another?What I would like is for you to explain to me why Nemesis Juggernaut, Artemis Entreri, and Hoot Mon are not bigots. We all know why you feel that you are not a bigot. But I'm curious as to what you think of Nemesis Juggernaut, Hoot Mon, and Artemis Entreri, and why you feel that they are not bigoted towards homosexuals. Or do you think that they are bigots?

Well, your definition certainly explains a lot. Plus it speaks volumes about Conservatives, and why this Country is in the current state that it is.So thanks for reaffirming my dislike of the Conservative Party with your flippant, yet telling, retort. Edited by FliesOnly, : No reason given.

Oh for fuck's sake...I am using the dictionary's definition. It's not my fault that grasping the concept of "intolerance" is apparently beyond your capabilities.I am not intolerant of your opinion, Catholic Scientist. If I were, then I would be of the mind set that you should not be allowed to express that opinion. Spout your homophobic bigotry as loudly and as often as you want. I would not for a minute try to stop you. I will vehemently disagree with you, but I won't ever try to stop you from having and/or expressing that opinion. Jumpin jesus on a pogo stick, Catholic Scientist. How fucking convenient for you. Golly gee, since gays don't have the right to marry (and why is that CS?), I'm not a bigot for agreeing that gays don't have the right to marry. Talk about circular reasoning.But why do you think gays do not have the right to marry? One minute you're telling me that you're OK with gay marriage, and the next minute you're telling me that you don't think gays have the right to marry. Make up your mind, CS.But I digress. So again I ask...WHY? Why do you feel that marriage is only be between one man and one women. Who gets to decide such a thing? What makes your denial of the right for gays to marry a non-bigoted notion? And how can you say that they have no right to marry....that you don't feel they should have the right to marry...and yet not consider yourself a bigot? I've never claimed not to be bigoted. However, if we follow your logic, then everyone is bigoted about everything. If all it takes is for me to disagree with your opinion and I become a bigot, then like I've said before...the word becomes meaningless. Bullshit. But if it'll make you happy, I'll leave off the word "fucking". There, is that better. Suddenly now, you would consider me a lesser bigot if I refer to you (and NJ, AE, and HM) simply as "homophobic bigots" and not "fucking homophobic bigots"? Does this mean that now, in addition to a meaningless definition of bigotry, we also must include various levels of bigotry?

Have I done anything to deny you your "opinion"? Have I ever stated that you cannot hold that opinion? Have I tried in any way to prevent you from stating your opinion? Anywhere...at any time?Golly gee, since the answer to ALL of the above is a resounding "NO", then I fail to see how I have been intolerant of your opinion. Admittedly, I do vehemently disagree with it, but I am quite tolerant of your opinion. See above.What strikes me as odd though, is why you can see no difference between our two positions, as they relate to bigotry. You want to call me a bigot because, at least according to you, I do not tolerate or respect your opinion.I, on the other hand consider you a bigot..not because of you have an opinion that differs from mine, an opinion that I happen to disagree with, but rather because of what your opinion states or means or does. Your opinion, when put into practice (as it is now) denies homosexuals the right to marry. It's a bigoted opinion. Something is done...something happens...one group is treated as inferior to another...one group is denied something that you yourself are not.And yet you see our two positions as equal. You want to deny a group of people the right to marry, and yet somehow or another you put this on a equal footing with me simply stating that you are a bigot. WTF are you talking about? Are you saying that gays are somehow or another physically prevented from marrying...that it is impossible in nature for two guys to get married...that there's some physical restriction preventing two guys from getting married? Again, I have to ask...WTF? They whole problem boils down to WHY they cannot get married..why they do not, as you say, have the RIGHT to get married. That's the whole crux of the argument.Perhaps you will enlighten me now, as to why this right does not exist for homosexuals. It's a simple question. Racism and bigotry are two different things, CS, otherwise we wouldn't need two words to describe them. It's quite possible to be a racist and not a bigot.Edited by FliesOnly, : typos

That's right NJ...he is not a bigot (at least in regards to homosexuals and gay marriage). He may be a lot of things, but in this instance he is not behaving as a bigot. He is denying homosexuals nothing. He may hate them, he may be homophobic, but unless he actually does something that shows intolerance (which is not the same as disliking or disagreeing) then why would you call him a bigot? Hell, he wants them treated the same as heterosexuals. How is that, by any stretch of the imagination, behaving as a bigot? Well, I would explain to him why our Constitution does not allow "Separate but Equal". I would go on to explain that since "marriage and civil unions are treated differently under the law, they are not equivalent. Those in homosexual marriages are denied the rights afforded to those in heterosexual marriages, and as such, are being treated unfairly solely based on their sexual orientation."If, after having this all explained to him, he persisted with wanting to treat homosexuals differently than heterosexuals, then, NJ, as per the definition of bigotry that you keep supplying to us, the person in the above example would be a bigot. The first individual is not being intolerant. He hates gays, but he is doing nothing to advance that hatred except in expressing how he feels.Seriously, can you see no difference? Look, you keep picking on how I apply the word intolerance. But if we go by your standard, then everyone on the entire planet is bigoted towards everyone else on the entire planet, because all of us disagree with some else about something (i.e.,are intolerant of their position). And it's because you keep applying "intolerance" as if it means that same thing as "disagreement". Did I say that the second man was a raving lunatic? I only ask because I can't seem to find that little tidbit anywhere. But anyway, to answer your question...the second man is more likely to be a bigot. No...people that do not understand the meaning of the word "bigot" would see the first person as such.

Bullshit, NJ. Don't you sit there and call me a liar...that somehow you know that I really don't believe what I just wrote. You find one place in anything I've said that would imply differently. Show me one place where I've said something that would give to impression that I feel the first guy is a bigot. Show me, N.J. Provide a link to a posting where I've written something that would now make me out to be a liar. Show me these ad hoc qualifiers that have backed me into this corner where I must now lie to save face.The first guy is NOT a bigot, and I have never implied differently...I have been completely consistent with my attempt to explain to you what the word bigot means. It's what I have been arguing since this whole thing started probably over a 1000 posts ago. The fact that you don't now believe me only strengthens my viewpoint that you are indeed a homophobic bigot that has no clue what the word means. Did you read the part where I stated that I would first explain to him WHY separate but equal doesn't work in this Country? He certainly shows the potential for intolerance though, wouldn't you agree. Where as the first guy...well...he may hate gays but at least he is not doing anything intolerant towards them. Golly, which one of the two seems the most likely to become a bigot to you N.J.? What's with this "utter intolerance" now? I love you guys. Every time you come to the realization that you're a bigot, you get out of it by adding new words and meanings to the definition.I yet you claim that I am the one making up the definition. What a crock. As I said in my previous post (did you bother to read it at all?), I would not consider him a bigot until such time that after having it explained to him WHY homosexuals should not be denied the right to marry the person of their choice, he still wanted to deny them this right. He's not a bigot until he tries to deny to others that which he himself is afforded. And here we see more of this crapolla again. Show me where I made up a definition, NJ. I am using the same definition that you are. The difference is, is that I know the meanings of the words. If your beliefs deny to others that which you yourself are afforded, then you are a bigot. I'm not the one that thinks everyone is a bigot towards everyone else. I'm the one that is applying the definition of bigotry as it is defined.Here's something to try. If you believe (as I think you do) that homosexuals should not be allowed to marry the person of their choice, then explain to me how this does not fit the definition of bigotry. Are you not being intolerant towards homosexuals? If not, please explain how this is not showing an intolerance.