On the Threshold of Bigotry

Hoot Mon responds to me:

quote:

---

What is it about hetero marriage that prevents a gay man from marrying a woman?

---

"What is it about same-race marriage that prevents a black person from marrying a black person?"If it's a crap argument when applied to race, why does it suddenly gain legitimacy when applied to sexual orientation?Edited by Rrhain, : No reason given.

---

Rrhain

---

Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.

Hoot Mon writes:

quote:

---

What about the wife who is necessary to make a married couple?

---

Why? What in the marriage contract requires one of the participants to be a woman? Only women can transfer property to a spouse? Only women can sponsor a spouse for citizenship? Only women can be head of household?Be specific.And how does this marriage prevent that marriage from happening? Why would two men getting married stop a woman from getting married?Be specific.

quote:

---

Shouldn't every marriage include at least one wife?

---

Why? What in the marriage contract requires one of the participants to be a woman? Only women can be established as conservators? Only a woman can apply for survivor's benefits?Be specific.And how does this marriage prevent that marriage from happening? Why would two men getting married stop a woman from getting married?Be specific.

quote:

---

Would you agree that all wives are necessarily married to their husbands?

---

Of course not. Some are married to their wives.

quote:

---

Would you agree that all wives are sexed female and all husbands male?

---

Indeed. But so what? You are assuming that a marriage requires a male and a female, but you haven't explained why. What in the marriage contract requires the couple be of opposite sex? Only women can tansfer property to men? Only men can sponsor women for citizenship?Be specific.And how does this marriage prevent that marriage from happening? Why would two men getting married stop a woman from getting married?Be specific.

quote:

---

Don't you think there ought to be a law that requires every marriage to include one or more wives.

---

Why? What in the marriage contract requires there to be a woman?And why would two men getting married deny a woman the right to get married?

quote:

---

Who ever heard of a marriage without a wife?

---

Gay men, at least.

quote:

---

Gay-marriage advocates, by their own assertions, are anti-wifehood.

---

Huh? If you have two men and two women, how is there any lack of husbands or wives if the two men marry and the two women marry?How does same-sex marriage prevent someone from marrying?

quote:

---

Gay men are out to dispense with the need for wives, which is tantamount to anti-marriage

---

Huh? How does a couple getting married become a declaration of anti-marriage? How does the neighbor's marriage affect you? You can't get married if they do?

quote:

---

it ought to be identified as such on the threshold of bigotry.

---

Huh? Bigotry is denying to others that which you demand for yourself. How does equality in marriage without regard to the sex of the participants deny opposite-sex couples from marrying?

---

Rrhain

---

Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.

Hoot Mon writes:

quote:

---

Do lesbians have wives? How could you tell? And how do two gay men decide who is the wife? Do they arm wrestle? Draw straws?

---

And you wonder why you keep getting tagged as a bigot.Yes, lesbians have wives. The meaning of the word "wife" is not "someone married to a man." Instead, "wife" means "a woman who is married."If two women get married, neither is the "husband." Similarly, when two men get married, neither is the "wife."Now, answer the question: What is it about the marriage contract that requires the couple be of the opposite sex? Only a woman can transfer property to a man? A woman can only be sponsored for citizenship by a man?Be specific.

---

Rrhain

---

Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.

Hoot Mon writes:

quote:

---

So when two lesbians get married are there two wives?

---

Of course. Please don't play dumb. A "wife" is simply a woman who is married. Therefore, if two women are married to each other, there are two wives.

quote:

---

If not, then who gets to the husband?

---

Neither. Please don't play dumb. When two women get married, there is no "husband."What is it about the marriage contract that requires the couple to be of mixed sex? Only a woman can transfer property to a man? A woman can only be sponsored for citizenship by a man?Be specific.

quote:

---

The threshold of bigotry is a complicated place with all these inverted homosexuals pretending to be wives.

---

And you wonder why you keep getting tagged as a bigot."Pretending"? Who's pretending? Please don't play dumb. When two women get married, they are both wives. A "wife" is a woman who is married. It doesn't depend upon the sex of the person to whom she is married, only that she is married.

quote:

---

If Judy is the wife of Jim, and Chuck is the wife of Larry

---

No, Judy would the wife of Jim but Chuck would be the "husband" of Larry. Chuck, being a married male, is a "husband."Please don't play dumb.

quote:

---

then we will have to teach our children to play house differently.

---

Huh? Are you saying kids don't know if they are boys or girls?Please don't play dumb.

quote:

---

After all, we don't want no stinkin' bigots at their make-believe tea parties.

---

No...it's too easy.Instead, a simple request:Please stop playing dumb.

---

Rrhain

---

Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.

Hoot Mon writes:

quote:

---

I set out to prove that the gays were after more than full access to all the legal benefits of state-sanctioned civil unions.

---

Incorrect. You set out to legitimize your bigotry in some Rube Goldberg contraption of evasion, disingenuousness, and "gotcha!" game-playing. You want to be able to say that those who wish to allow marriage for all regardless of the sex of the participants are the real "bigots" rather than you, who wish to deny to others that which you demand for yourself.We know this because long before you started this thread, you were shown in specific detail why it is that "civil union" does not grant full legal rights of marriage. Not only is it impossible theoretically (unconstitutional by Brown v. Board of Education wherein "separate but equal" is proscribed), it is been impossible practically (every single attempt to create an "equal" contract to marriage has failed...they are all deficient.)

quote:

---

But even gaining that is not enough for them.

---

Incorrect. You are calling a sub-standard contract "the same." Since it isn't the same, why should it be considered "enough"? If you truly want equality, if you truly do not wish to deny gays that which you demand for yourself, then the only solution is to have a single contract for everyone.Since you don't want a single contract, since you want a separate contract, since separate contracts are always unequal, then you give the lie to your claim.And you wonder why you keep getting tagged as a bigot.

quote:

---

They want to steal a titular prize they don't qualify for.

---

Huh? Loving v. Virginia was wrongly decided? Marriage isn't a fundamental right?Romer v. Evans was wrongly decided? Gays can be excluded from the constitutional process?Lawrence v. Texas was wrongly decided? You can criminalize actions based upon sexual orientation?If not, then how is it gay people "don't qualify" for marriage?Be specific.

quote:

---

They want to get "married," too, as if they were doing it with opposite sexes.

---

And you wonder why you keep getting tagged as a bigot.What about the marriage contract requires the participants be of mixed sex? Only a woman can transfer property to a man? A woman can only be sponsored for citizenship by a man?Be specific.

quote:

---

And so who is the bigot here?

---

The one who wishes to deny to others that which they demand for themselves.How does allowing marriage to all without regard to the sex of the participants deny marriage to people of any sex who wish to get married?Be specific.

quote:

---

It's not an issue about denying the gays anything.

---

You're denying them marriage. "Civil unions" are not equivalent. They never can be. Every single attempt to make an equivalent "civil union" has failed. Even when directly ordered to create an identical contract, the "civil union" contract has always been deficient.And when you create a second contract with a different name, you necessarily and legally declare it to be a different contract. Since it is different, that means it can be treated differently. Since it can be treated differently, that means it is not the same.Thus, you give the lie to your claim that you don't want to deny rights to gay people. On the contrary, that's exactly what you want to do. You wish to deny to others that which you demand for yourself.And you wonder why you keep getting tagged a bigot.

quote:

---

If two men get civilly united and there is no wife as a result, then they are not married.

---

What about the marriage contract requires the participants be of mixed sex? Only a woman can transfer property to a man? A woman can only be sponsored for citizenship by a man?Be specific.

quote:

---

(Wives are always females in my Vocabulary 101.)

---

Indeed. So if a woman is married, how is she not a "wife." What is it about the person she's married to being a woman that changes things? A "wife" is a woman who is married. Why would that change if she is married to a woman?Be specific.

quote:

---

They can be something else, though, that applies to same-sex civil unions.

---

"They can be something else, though, that applies to interracial civil unions."If it's a crap argument when applied to race, why does it suddenly become legitimate when applied to sexual orientation?But "civil unions" are not the equivalent of marriage. They never can be. When you create a second contract with a different name, you necessarily and legally declare it to be a different contract. Since it is different, that means it can be treated differently. Since it can be treated differently, that means it is not the same.Thus, you give the lie to your claim that you don't want to deny rights to gay people. On the contrary, that's exactly what you want to do. You wish to deny to others that which you demand for yourself.And you wonder why you keep getting tagged a bigot.

quote:

---

I've offered a few words as candidates for your Vocabulary 101.

---

But it isn't up to gay people to come up with a new word for "marriage." That word already exists, it applies to gay people just as much as it does to straight people. What about the marriage contract requires the participants be of mixed sex? Only a woman can transfer property to a man? A woman can only be sponsored for citizenship by a man?Be specific.Since you're the one who wants to make a distinction, then you're the one who needs to come up with a word to describe your "special friendship." Since absolutely nobody is confused by the use of the term "marriage" to refer to a same-sex couple, it is your burden to come up with a new term to set yourself apart from what everybody else understands.

quote:

---

But why can't they have their own title for be civilly united homosexuals and call it, say, "domestic partnerships"? Why can't they get DPed?

---

"But why can't they have their own title for be [sic] civilly united interracials and call it, say, 'domestic partnerships'? Why can't they get DPed?"If it's a crap argument when applied to race, why does it suddenly become legitimate when applied to sexual orientation?This has been explained to you numerous times. "Domestic partnerships" are not the equivalent of marriage. They never can be. When you create a second contract with a different name, you necessarily and legally declare it to be a different contract. Since it is different, that means it can be treated differently. Since it can be treated differently, that means it is not the same. Every attempt to create an equal "domestic partnership" to marriage has failed. Every single one has been deficient, denying rights to gays that are demanded for straights.Thus, you give the lie to your claim that you don't want to deny rights to gay people. On the contrary, that's exactly what you want to do. You wish to deny to others that which you demand for yourself.And you wonder why you keep getting tagged a bigot.

quote:

---

If they backed off this one niggling detail they might garner more respect from the general population.

---

"If the interracial couples backed off this one niggling detail, they might garner more respect from the general population."If it's a crap argument when applied to race, why does it suddenly become legitimate when applied to sexual orientation? After all, when Loving v. Virginia was decided, more than 70% of the population thought interracial marriage should be outlawed. Are you saying Loving v. Virginia was wrongly decided? They should not have had the right of marriage recognized?There can never be equality without the single name applying to all. "civil unions" are not the equivalent of marriage. They never can be. When you create a second contract with a different name, you necessarily and legally declare it to be a different contract. Since it is different, that means it can be treated differently. Since it can be treated differently, that means it is not the same. Every attempt to create an equal "civil union" to marriage has failed. Every single one has been deficient, denying rights to gays that are demanded for straights.Thus, you give the lie to your claim that you don't want to deny rights to gay people. On the contrary, that's exactly what you want to do. You wish to deny to others that which you demand for yourself.And you wonder why you keep getting tagged a bigot.

quote:

---

I make this differentiation only because "marriage," to me, and to a whole lot of other good people, implies a civilly united man and woman.

---

"I make this differentiation only because 'marriage,' to me, and to a whole lot of other good people, implies a civilly united couple of the same race."If it's a crap argument when applied to race, why does it suddenly become legitimate when applied to sexual orientation?Are you saying the law needs to be beholden to the bigots? The law requires a single contract since "separate but equal" is unconstitutional. Every attempt to create a "separate but equal" contract has failed. Since it cannot work in theory and it does not work in practice, the only solution is to have a single contract for all.Since you refuse to accept this, it gives the lie to your claim that you don't want to deny rights to gay people. On the contrary, that's exactly what you want to do. You wish to deny to others that which you demand for yourself.And you wonder why you keep getting tagged a bigot.

quote:

---

Just because the gays have come out the closet and are now demanding that marriage is not what it was always thought to be doesn't change the meaning of the word one damn bit.

---

"Just because the interracial couples have become uppity and are demanding that marriage is not what it was always thought to be doesn't change the meaning of the word one damn bit."If it's a crap argument when applied to race, why does it suddenly become legitimate when applied to sexual orientation?Are you saying Loving v. Virginia was wrongly decided? They should not have had the right of marriage recognized?

quote:

---

There must be something intrinsically bigoted about me. If I met two men on the street and introduced myself to them, and if one of them relied, "Hi, my name is Chuck, and this is my wife Larry." I would probably blow a little fuse somewhere in my brain, blink, smile, and say, "Pleased me meet you both, especially the lovely wife."

---

Indeed, that would be something to blink at since Chuck would never introduce his husband as his "wife." A "wife," as you already have stated, is a married woman. Since Larry is man and not a woman, that means he isn't a "wife."He's a "husband." A married man is called a "husband." Larry is a man. Larry is married. Larry is a "husband." Larry is married to Chuck. Larry is Chuck's "husband."Now here's the question: If you met two men on the street and introduced yourself to them and one of them replied, "Hi, my name is Chuck, and this is my husband Larry," would you "blow a little fuse somewhere in your brain"?

---

Rrhain

---

Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.

Hoot Mon writes:

quote:

---

Well, then I'm intolerant towards the idea of simply allowing homosexuals to get married. I'll fess up to that, because that is not my idea of marriage.

---

"Well, then I'm intolerant towards the idea of simply allowing interracial couples to get married. I'll fess up to that, because that is not my idea of marriage.[/quote]If it's a crap argument when applied to race, why does it suddenly gain legitimacy when applied to sexual orientation?

quote:

---

Why are the gays intolerant of my take on marriage?

---

They're not. Nobody is trying to make you marry somebody you don't want to be. They are not trying to deny you something they demand for themselves.This is in contrast to you. You are trying to deny them something you demand for yourself.

quote:

---

Doesn't intolerance work both ways?

---

No. You're trying to stop people from doing something you want to do yourself. The other side is not trying to stop you from doing what they want to do themselves. How does you advocating a hindrance and their advocating freedom equate to "working both ways"?

quote:

---

Whose opinion is more intolerant”the gays' or the straights'?

---

This isn't about "gays or straights." This is about tolerance and bigotry. We have you on the one side, trying to deny others that which you demand for yourself. Then there are those on the other side who want to allow everyone to share in the same contract.How does freedom equate to "intolerance"? How does denial equate to "tolerance"?

quote:

---

Then why do we differentiate between the races?

---

Huh? We don't differentiate between the races when it comes to marriage. That was the entire point behind Loving v. Virginia: Marriage isn't about the race of the participants. Are you saying Loving v. Virginia was wrongly decided?

quote:

---

"Two robbers held up the First State Bank today; one was white and the other black." Isn't that the same kind of discrimination?

---

Not at all. That is merely a descriptor. What would be discrimination would be if one of them received a different sentence due to race even though they did the same crime.

quote:

---

Which one of us is more right than the other?

---

Since the Constitution is our guide for what is right and wrong when it comes to the law, that would mean that you are in the wrong. The Fourteenth Amendment insists upon equal treatment under the law.Are you saying the Fourteenth Amendment doesn't apply to gay people?

quote:

---

I suppose I am standing on someone's threshold of bigotry. But it doesn't seem like it to me.

---

You want to deny to others that which you demand for yourself. What's not to understand?

quote:

---

If Chuck and Larry came over to my house and held hands on the couch, I would notice more than if John and Linda came over to my place and help hands on the couch. I would be dishonest to claim anything else.

---

But that's irrelevant. Nobody cares what you think of their love for each other. The only thing that matters is whether or not you want to deny them the same rights that you demand for yourself. Go ahead and not enjoy the prospect of loving someone of your own sex. Nobody is trying to make you.

quote:

---

I hope Mr. and Mrs. Chuck and Larry

---

Huh? There is no "Mrs." It's "Mr. and Mr." There is no woman, thus there is no "wife" and there is no "Mrs." and nobody is pretending to be anything.And you wonder why you keep getting tagged as a bigot.

---

Rrhain

---

Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.

Hoot Mon responds to me:

quote:

---

Whose dictionary are you working out of?

---

You do realize that dictionaries are descriptive, not proscriptive, yes? You're making the same argument as creationists trying to say that evolution is "just a theory" as if by "theory," one means "educated guess" simply because you can find that as a definition for "theory" in a dictionary.If Chuck comes up to you and asks, "Do you know my husband?" you'd be thinking of a man, wouldn't you? You'd still think that Chuck was a man, wouldn't you?So since even you aren't confused (and let's not play dumb and pretend you would be), then how can you claim that there is any confusion anywhere?

---

Rrhain

---

Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.

Catholic Scientist writes:

quote:

---

It seems there's a little bit more to it than that...

---

Like what? Be specific.You have two men and two women. They pair off and get married. What is "more to it than that" if the pairs are girl-girl, boy-boy rather than girl-boy, girl-boy?Be specific.

quote:

---

I haven't done anything at all to get in the way of gay marriage

---

You mean you didn't say you'd vote against equality in marriage laws? How is that "not doing anything"?

quote:

---

its advocates have still identified me as a "fucking homophobic bigot".

---

Those were your words, Catholic Scientist. You described yourself that way.

quote:

---

But simply not supporting gay marriage, while still not getting in the way, is also on the must hate list.

​

I think that, itself, is another form of bigotry.

---

Ah, yes...refusing to accept intolerance is somehow intolerance.Do you wish to deny others that which you demand for yourself? Then that's bigotry.Calling people out on that is not bigotry. You're right: Not supporting gay marriage is all it takes. Bigotry is unacceptable. Denying others that which you demand for yourself is bigotry. Therefore, not advocating equality in marriage is bigotry and therefore unacceptable.Now, let's not wander into the "But I don't kick puppies!" response as if being, to use your words, a "fucking homophobic bigot" means you're equivalent to a genocidal maniac. Nobody is saying you're wandering the streets at night, looking to murder innocent gays as they come home from work.You simply don't want equality for gay people.

---

Rrhain

---

Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.

Hoot Mon responds to rbp:

quote:

---

quote:

---

I know this is directed at Rrhain but i get a headache when people start using dictionaries like this.

---

​

You mean using dictionaries for looking up the definitions of words?

---

No, pretending that dictionaries are proscriptive, not descriptive. Pretending that if you can find one definition in a dictionary that matches your intention, then that means everybody else means the same thing.Yeah, you go to the dictionary to look up the meaning of a word, but you then realize that a dictionary will never provide all possible meanings.As you saw, Merriam-Webster doesn't include your distinction. So why does your dictionary get to trump this other one?

---

Rrhain

---

Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.

Hoot Mon writes:

quote:

---

They are interfering with my interference of their freedom of action to interfere with my freedom of action to interfere.

---

Right...refusing to accept bigotry is somehow bigotry.How does the neighbor's marriage affect you, Hoot Mon? What in your life changes when the neighbor's legal relationship changes?Be specific.If you can't come up with anything, then how is their non-interference in your life equivalent to your interference in theirs?

---

Rrhain

---

Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.

Catholic Scientist responds to me:

quote:

---

quote:

---

quote:

---

It seems there's a little bit more to it than that...

---

​

Like what? Be specific.

​

You have two men and two women. They pair off and get married. What is "more to it than that" if the pairs are girl-girl, boy-boy rather than girl-boy, girl-boy?

​

Be specific.

---

​

Are you a fucking moron or do you do this on purpose?

---

No, and yes. I'm not going to make your argument for you, though I'm pretty sure I know what it is. You're going to have to do that for yourself. It's your argument. You spell it out.

quote:

---

Your boy-boy/girl-girl bullshit has absolutely nothing to do with the "little bit more" that I was referring to.

---

Then what are they, because nothing in your post showed any "little bit more" with regard to the contract of marriage that happens when the couple is same-sex compared to when they are mixed-sex.What about the legal contract of marriage requires the couple to be of mixed sex? Only women can transfer property to men? A woman can only be sponsored for citizenship by a man?Be specific.

quote:

---

In fact, I said multiple times that I really didn't care if they do get married.

---

And yet you keep arguing against it. Do I really need to remind you of your own words in the previous thread? You brought up polygamy as if that had something to do with the issue, using it as a reason to argue against same-sex marriage: If we allow same-sex marriage, what's to stop us from allowing polygamy? Message 429: Let's not play dumb and pretend that you only brought it up as part of a thought experiment, an interesting exercise in mental masturbation with absolutely no intention behind it beyond that.You brought up incest as if that had something to do with the issue, using it as a reason to argue against same-sex marriage: If we allow same-sex marriage, what's to stop us from allowing incest? Message 425: Let's not play dumb and pretend that you only brought it up as part of a thought experiment, an interesting exercise in mental masturbation with absolutely no intention behind it beyond that.You kept on talking about "consequences" of same-sex marriage, implying that there would be a massive rise in fraud and chicanery with regard to insurance if same-sex marriage were to take place: Message 420: Let's not play dumb and pretend that this isn't an argument against same-sex marriage. But to compound your disingenuousness, you immediately say after this assertion: So as I directly asked you: You never did respond. Ah, but that's because, as you admit, you don't read all my posts.Perhaps that's why you keep thinking you can deny what you have said: Since you don't read all the responses to you, you think everybody else behaves the same way and since you didn't see what other people have said, then they couldn't possibly have seen what you said, therefore they won't be able to prove you wrong.But that's the thing about the internet: Your words stick around.But let's be direct: Message 418: Let's not play dumb and pretend that you only brought it up as a part of a thought experiment, an interesting exercise in mental masturbation with absolutely no intention behind it beyond that. You brought it up because you thought that there would be bad "consequences" by allowing same-sex marraige..."consequences" that should be prevented. How do I know? Message 416: So as I directly asked you: You never did respond. Ah, but that's because, as you admit, you don't read all my posts.Perhaps that's why you keep thinking you can deny what you have said: Since you don't read all the responses to you, you think everybody else behaves the same way and since you didn't see what other people have said, then they couldn't possibly have seen what you said, therefore they won't be able to prove you wrong.That's the thing about the internet: Your words stick around.

quote:

---

quote:

---

Those were your words, Catholic Scientist. You described yourself that way.

---

​

Not true, not the first time at least.

---

But nobody has called you that here (at least, not in recent memory). Why do you ascribe others motivations to those of us here?

quote:

---

quote:

---

Ah, yes...refusing to accept intolerance is somehow intolerance.

---

​

You just label opposing opinion as intolerance so you get your free pass to be as bigoted as you want.

---

And thus, you prove the point: Refusing to accept intolerance is somehow intolerance.On one side, we have those who want all of us to be able to do what we want without interference.On the other side, we have those who want to do what they want without interference but want to interfere with others doing the same thing.How are those equivalent?There is a difference between holding the opinion, "I don't like that," and making the statement, "And thus, you shouldn't like it, either."

quote:

---

Not according to the definition of bigotry that is found in dictionaries.

---

Didn't we just have a discussion with Hoot Mon about this very thing? That dictionaries are descriptive, not proscriptive? That this is the exact same argument that creationists use to claim that evolutionary theory is nothing more than an "educated guess" because there is a dictionary definition of "theory" that is "educated guess" and that this claim is bogus?Why, yes! Yes, there was!Oh, but that's right...you don't read the posts. No wonder you never seem to know what's going on.But, since you seem to be so enamored of dictionary definitions:Webster's Revised Unabridged:Big"ot\, n. [F. bigot a bigot or hypocrite, a name once given to the Normans in France. Of unknown origin; possibly akin to Sp. bigote a whisker; hombre de bigote a man of spirit and vigor; cf. It. s-bigottire to terrify, to appall. Wedgwood and others maintain that bigot is from the same source as Beguine, Beghard.]1. A hypocriteWell, hypocrisy is "the practice of professing beliefs, feelings, or virtues that one does not hold or possess; falseness" (American Heritage Dictionary). Essentially, saying one thing and doing another. In other words, a double standard: There's the standard you hold everyone else to and the standard you hold yourself to.So bigotry is holding a double standard (among other things). And how is denying to others that which you demand for yourself not an example of a double standard?Oh, that's right...you won't read this post. So how can anybody expect you to follow along?

quote:

---

Rrhain, you have to be the most annoying and dumbest asshole I have forumed with.

---

But you don't read my posts. How on earth could you possibly know that?Hmmm...perhaps you really do read my posts. In which case, why is it you never answer the direct questions put to you?

quote:

---

I don't want un-equality for gay people. I just don't care.

---

But that isn't true. Do I really need to quote more of your own words back to you? Message 413: Let's not play dumb and pretend that you only brought it up as a part of a thought experiment, an interesting exercise in mental masturbation with absolutely no intention behind it beyond that. You brought it up because you thought that there would be bad "consequences" by allowing same-sex marraige..."consequences" that should be prevented.How do I know? Message 409: And yet, the Constitution does grant straights the legal right to marriage. Or are you saying Loving v. Virginia was wrongly decided?If not, if Loving v. Virginia was correctly decided, then why is it gay people don't have the same Constitutional right as straight people? How do you reconcile your claim that you "don't want un-equality for gay people" with your direct statement that they don't have the same rights that straight people do?Be specific.

quote:

---

I haven't done anything at all to get in the way of gay marriage

---

You mean you didn't say you'd vote against equality in marriage laws? How is that "not doing anything"?

quote:

---

its advocates have still identified me as a "fucking homophobic bigot".

---

Those were your words, Catholic Scientist. You described yourself that way.

quote:

---

But simply not supporting gay marriage, while still not getting in the way, is also on the must hate list.

​

I think that, itself, is another form of bigotry.

---

Ah, yes...refusing to accept intolerance is somehow intolerance.Do you wish to deny others that which you demand for yourself? Then that's bigotry.Calling people out on that is not bigotry. You're right: Not supporting gay marriage is all it takes. Bigotry is unacceptable. Denying others that which you demand for yourself is bigotry. Therefore, not advocating equality in marriage is bigotry and therefore unacceptable.Now, let's not wander into the "But I don't kick puppies!" response as if being, to use your words, a "fucking homophobic bigot" means you're equivalent to a genocidal maniac. Nobody is saying you're wandering the streets at night, looking to murder innocent gays as they come home from work.You simply don't want equality for gay people.

---

Rrhain

---

Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.

Hoot Mon responds to me:

quote:

---

Is Heinz using the evocation of bigotry to sell its mayonnaise? And why?

---

No. The ad does not present there being anything wrong with the men kissing. Therefore, why would there be any bigotry?You did read the article attached to your reference, right? In short, it isn't really a New York deli man...it's the mother but by using the brand, she becomes a perfect sandwich-maker...so much so that you'd swear she was a New York deli man. The common way to present such an equivalency would be to have her appear as a mum and have people treat her as a deli man ("Do I need to take a number?") Instead, they've decided to reverse it: Have her appear as a deli man and have people treat her as a mum.It's akin to the Pizza Hut commercials that are playing here in the uS for their new menu items: They mock up a restaurant, have people come in to eat the food, get them to say how wonderful it is, and then let them know that they're really eating food from Pizza Hut. The brand is so good you'd think it was restaurant food.Thus, they put forward a visual to reinforce that idea: X is as good as Y. Therefore, in referring to X, we show an image of Y to reinforce the equivalence.

quote:

---

For the same reason that Nike used the evocation of bigotry to sell its sneakers? And why?

---

No. The Nike ad directly stated there was something wrong. The tag line of the ad was, "That ain't right."

quote:

---

Possible answers:

---

You missed one:8) None of the above. The two do not go together.

---

Rrhain

---

Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.