Gay couples in a Texas restaurant

[Nobody]

Espousing tolerance for homosexuals, while condemning intolerance for differing opinion, isn't a consistent example of tolerance!

It's not intolerance for differing opinion, it's intolerance of intolerance.

While someone is perfectly entitled to their opinion, they have no right to dictate to others how they live their lives. In such a scenario I think it's perfectly reasonable to speak out against such a bigot.

Morals isn't bigotry.
Unfortunately, what's evolving in American society is intolerance for morality.
Tolerance is only afforded to that what is objectionable. One does not have to tolerate that which they accept. Tolerance is a compromise. It is not esteem. Nor is tolerance equality.

The theoretical abstraction of homosexual marriage is not exempt from these factors surrounding it.


Gay Rights, Gay Rage By Robert Stacy McCain on 11.17.08
California protests expose the folly of “rights talk.”

[Ryantology]

Morals isn't bigotry.

That is certainly not true a lot of the time. There are countless acts deemed 'immoral' for no reason other than a bigotry towards unconventional practices, even when they are demonstrably harmless. Almost anyone would consider murder immoral, because it is obviously harmful. If you ask a person why they think homosexuality is immoral, they'll either resort to scripture, or suggest that it has some nonexistent negative effect on society which is almost always qualified by similar 'moral' bigotries (they's rooinin the sanktitty of marrige!! their kids will grow up and be fags!).

I don't care if it means I'm being 'intolerant'. I do not tolerate behavior which is intended to hurt or demean other people who have done nothing to deserve it.

[Question Mark]

Over 30 States can refuse service to homosexuals? And there are a huge number of States where homosexual marriage and/or civil unions are illegal.

Things aren't changing as much as people think.

Perhaps not int he law books, but the opinions of the people are indeed changing, and as soon as someone actually moderate gets into a position of power in places where those laws exist, they'll most likely either fade or be removed.

Espousing tolerance for homosexuals, while condemning intolerance for differing opinion, isn't a consistent example of tolerance!

So if someone were being racist in a bar, and refusing a black guy drinks, it'd be intolerant of another bar patron to tell the bartender that they were being a racist? It's either speak up against it, or be quiet, and since the one side is refusing to be quiet, I think that makes the situation no holds barred in terms of verbally speaking against bigotry.

---

Morals isn't bigotry.

The sad fact of the matter is that that same thing has been said of numerous rights movements. Women's right, black rights, Jewish rights, Catholic rights, interracial marriage, all of them were persecuted on grounds of "morality".

Morality is supposed to protect the well being of everyone, not ban people from doing things just because other people wouldn't want to do it themselves.
I don't like people chewing gum. I think it's a disgusting habit and it makes me cringe at the sight of it, but I'm not going to tell people to stop chewing gum just because I don't like it, and because it gets on my shoes, or because it ends up as litter, or stuck to the bottoms of tables, or because children sometimes choke on it.

Shall we open up the moral implications of gum chewing?

[Nobody]

Morals isn't bigotry.

That is certainly not true a lot of the time. There are countless acts deemed 'immoral' for no reason other than a bigotry towards unconventional practices, even when they are demonstrably harmless. Almost anyone would consider murder immoral, because it is obviously harmful. If you ask a person why they think homosexuality is immoral, they'll either resort to scripture, or suggest that it has some nonexistent negative effect on society which is almost always qualified by similar 'moral' bigotries (they's rooinin the sanktitty of marrige!! their kids will grow up and be fags!).

I don't care if it means I'm being 'intolerant'. I do not tolerate behavior which is intended to hurt or demean other people who have done nothing to deserve it.

I think you'd make a better point if you didn't disrespect the topic with such drivel as "rooinin sankitty" in your speech. It's isn't cool. It just shows you don't respect the dialog so how can you espouse respect for tolerance?

I think the later part of your declaration was superseded by the first. You don't care.
It seems like a double standard to claim you don't care about other peoples moral standards, while proclaiming to care about being tolerant.

Regardless, I would say others are just as entitled to say they don't have to meet anyone elses expectations when it comes to personal values or their own sense of morality.
Having morals that do not agree immorality is to be tolerated doesn't hurt others, nor does it demean others.
One does not have to agree everything is to be tolerated just so as to insure no one's feelings are hurt no matter what behaviors they engage in.

People have to agree to disagree. And people have to realize not everything is tolerable. Sex is not a civil right.
And when, as an example, homosexuals demand the right to get married and call their same sex unions a marriage, when affording them the opportunity to enter into a civil union that would entail being afforded the exact same government benefits as is afforded by the civil contract marriage straights enter into, and that is deemed by many homosexuals to be unacceptable, the tolerance factor is clearly one sided.

The United States code presently defines marriage as between that of one man and one woman. Religion and it's definitions are separate and have their understanding along that same line as well.

Homosexuality isn't new. There is hardly ever an account in history wherein homosexuality has been accepted as the norm in a society, save perhaps for ancient Greece. And they buggered animals , so their standards were nothing to uphold as that of the highest value back in the ancient times.

Civil rights are afforded all Americans at all times. What is at issue is the matter of sex, relationship by law that permits certain exclusive rights and privileges when contracted by government license, and procreation. Which can only be achieved through artificial/surrogate methods or via adoption, when speaking of homosexuals.

People have a right to opine about that. And it is a myth that homosexual relationship under civil contract does not affect society. If 'marriage' was so benign as all that to mean nothing, polygamy would be legal.
Certain religions espouse that as a god given right, and regardless of that it is illegal in all of the United States.
There's a reason for that. And what's interesting is there isn't a mass evolving movement that espouses tolerance for polygamy.

The present map of States that have gone so far as to amend their Constitutions so as to outlaw homosexual marriage and/or civil unions, speaks to the state of the union, sort of speak.

What is interesting when one takes a sober look at those statistics is, there's very little tolerance for the will of the people that let that to happen.

So in matters of tolerance it's elective, rather than compulsory.

[Question Mark]

Homosexuality isn't new. There is hardly ever an account in history wherein homosexuality has been accepted as the norm in a society, save perhaps for ancient Greece. And they buggered animals , so their standards were nothing to uphold as that of the highest value back in the ancient times.

I'm afraid you're not quite correct there.

Homosexuality was accepted in varying forms and by different criteria under Greece, Rome, a number of Germanic tribes during the same period, multiple dynastic regimes of China, sometimes in ancient Japanese texts, some parts of Africa before European colonialism dominated the area. Multiple smaller instances of accepted homosexuality are prevalent throughout the world. The only instances of intolerance towards it are typically religious based in their roots, having spread tot he social norms and political spectrums through centuries of religious influence upon societies.

[Nobody]

Homosexuality isn't new. There is hardly ever an account in history wherein homosexuality has been accepted as the norm in a society, save perhaps for ancient Greece. And they buggered animals , so their standards were nothing to uphold as that of the highest value back in the ancient times.

I'm afraid you're not quite correct there.

Homosexuality was accepted in varying forms and by different criteria under Greece, Rome, a number of Germanic tribes during the same period, multiple dynastic regimes of China, sometimes in ancient Japanese texts, some parts of Africa before European colonialism dominated the area. Multiple smaller instances of accepted homosexuality are prevalent throughout the world. The only instances of intolerance towards it are typically religious based in their roots, having spread tot he social norms and political spectrums through centuries of religious influence upon societies.

Ah, thank you. I was quite unaware of that extensive history of acceptance.

[popeyespappy]

Morals isn't bigotry

I agree. Morals aren't bigotry. Merriam-Webster defines a bigot as:

a person who is obstinately or intolerantly devoted to his or her own opinions and prejudices; especially : one who regards or treats the members of a group (as a racial or ethnic group) with hatred and intolerance

If a Christian's morals means they can't engage in sexual activity with members of the same sex that's just fine. However denying the privilege and benefits of legally sanctioned marriage to others based purely on gender while reserving that same privilege for yourself is bigotry.

[Nobody]

Morals isn't bigotry

I agree. Morals aren't bigotry. Merriam-Webster defines a bigot as:

a person who is obstinately or intolerantly devoted to his or her own opinions and prejudices; especially : one who regards or treats the members of a group (as a racial or ethnic group) with hatred and intolerance

If a Christian's morals means they can't engage in sexual activity with members of the same sex that's just fine. However denying the privilege and benefits of legally sanctioned marriage to others based purely on gender while reserving that same privilege for yourself is bigotry.

Their denial isn't based purely on gender at all. The sexes involved in homosexual relationship already have civil rights and are not discriminated against because of their gender.

The denial is based on affording a special privilege to unnatural deviant sexual behaviors, amid actors in the commission of said behaviors, who expect to be taken as equals and entitled to behave unnaturally, while acquiring the government privileges, benefits, and exemptions they declare are an entitlement because their unnatural passions should be seen as equal to that of heterosexuals.

There is nothing in the anatomy of a man that is made to sex another man naturally. The same is said for females.
Homosexuals by nature can not procreate.

The discrimination here is in claiming passion has a civil right to exercise itself regardless of how unnatural it is.
Sex is not a civil right entitlement.

The actors in homosexual relationships have civil rights as individuals and as Americans. What they want is the special right to enter into a marriage for all that that means that is above and beyond individuality when it enshrines relationship and sexual behavior and potential procreation.

The sex is unnatural in itself. And any children that would be brought into the relationship would enter through unnatural methods, i.e. foreign intercession beyond those who are intimately involved in the relationship being physically, anatomically, biologically incapable of being the genetic bearers of their own offspring.
i.e. two men can not have children together. Nor can two women. It requires in vitro fertilization by a donor outside the relationship in the case of homosexual males, via surrogate. And in the case of lesbians, it requires a male sperm donor and implantation into one of the women in the relationship, if they wish to bear their own offspring.

In these methods, the child itself can be a product of an anonymous donor and thereby be denied knowing who one part of their ancestral heritage and genetics, belong to. Which can be complicated in the event that information becomes medically necessary for them later on.

It's a matter of approving the unnatural, because the actors involved believe they are entitled to pursuit of unnatural desires simply because they feel same sex sexual attraction. And the pardon that's expected is that they're consensual in acting on those desires regardless of the fact they are unnatural. And as such, rather than people being able to freely opine homosexuality is unnatural, they're labeled bigot! While to avoid that label they're suppose to tolerate what is not natural.

It's convoluted and disingenuous for a homosexual advocate community to argue the merits of tolerating homosexuals, while decrying and being intolerant of those who object to homosexuals having special privilege due to their unnatural sexual libido.

[Cinjin]

I agree. Morals aren't bigotry. Merriam-Webster defines a bigot as:


If a Christian's morals means they can't engage in sexual activity with members of the same sex that's just fine. However denying the privilege and benefits of legally sanctioned marriage to others based purely on gender while reserving that same privilege for yourself is bigotry.

Their denial isn't based purely on gender at all. The sexes involved in homosexual relationship already have civil rights and are not discriminated against because of their gender.

The denial is based on affording a special privilege to unnatural deviant sexual behaviors, amid actors in the commission of said behaviors, who expect to be taken as equals and entitled to behave unnaturally, while acquiring the government privileges, benefits, and exemptions they declare are an entitlement because their unnatural passions should be seen as equal to that of heterosexuals.

Incorrect and obviously biased. The denial issued is not for special privilege as your statement suggests, the denial is for equal treatment, of which they do not receive. It is not a "special privilege" to be treated equally.

There is nothing in the anatomy of a man that is made to sex another man naturally. The same is said for females.
Homosexuals by nature can not procreate.

So? That point is moot when debating the definitions of bigotry and toleration. No one is demanding that you become a homosexual or even condone it. Whether or not two people can procreate should not decide whether or not they are issued the same privileges that you are, and it certainly isn't the deciding factor on whether they should be treated with simple human decency and respect.

The discrimination here is in claiming passion has a civil right to exercise itself regardless of how unnatural it is.
Sex is not a civil right entitlement.

The definition of bigotry does not hinge on your definition of natural and unnatural ... or anyone's definition for that matter.

The actors in homosexual relationships have civil rights as individuals and as Americans. What they want is the special right to enter into a marriage for all that that means that is above and beyond individuality when it enshrines relationship and sexual behavior and potential procreation.

Again, you use the term "special right" to defend your own agenda. It is absolutely dishonest. Asking for the rights that everyone else has is not a special right, it's a equal right.

The sex is unnatural in itself. And any children that would be brought into the relationship would enter through unnatural methods, i.e. foreign intercession beyond those who are intimately involved in the relationship being physically, anatomically, biologically incapable of being the genetic bearers of their own offspring.
i.e. two men can not have children together. Nor can two women. It requires in vitro fertilization by a donor outside the relationship in the case of homosexual males, via surrogate. And in the case of lesbians, it requires a male sperm donor and implantation into one of the women in the relationship, if they wish to bear their own offspring.

Millions of heterosexual couples require invitro fertilization, adoption and surrogates, and once again using the term 'unnatural' does not excuse bigotry and intolerance. You are not the great decider of what the entirety of society accepts.

In these methods, the child itself can be a product of an anonymous donor and thereby be denied knowing who one part of their ancestral heritage and genetics, belong to. Which can be complicated in the event that information becomes medically necessary for them later on.

So? This is easily overcome by any couple gay or straight. This is a non-issue.

It's a matter of approving the unnatural, because the actors involved believe they are entitled to pursuit of unnatural desires simply because they feel same sex sexual attraction. And the pardon that's expected is that they're consensual in acting on those desires regardless of the fact they are unnatural. And as such, rather than people being able to freely opine homosexuality is unnatural, they're labeled bigot! While to avoid that label they're suppose to tolerate what is not natural.

It's convoluted and disingenuous for a homosexual advocate community to argue the merits of tolerating homosexuals, while decrying and being intolerant of those who object to homosexuals having special privilege due to their unnatural sexual libido.

This is your own homophobic bias. Furthermore, medical science has proven that homosexuality is not a choice, therefore, how can it be completely unnatural. Just because two men/women can't make a child doesn't mean that nature didn't intend them to be that way. Especially when you consider the overwhelming amount of homosexuals in the world. My point is though that you can't ascribe 'natural' and 'unnatural' to validating what should or should not be considered worthy of toleration. I find the worship of silly gods "unnatural." I don't believe in them, they serve no purpose. I personally think that since you can't find one in nature that they are indeed unnatural. Should I then be allowed to yell at a christian to stop praying in a public restaurant? You are using your own bias to justify your own bigotry. Pathetic.

[Ryantology]

I think you'd make a better point if you didn't disrespect the topic with such drivel as "rooinin sankitty" in your speech. It's isn't cool. It just shows you don't respect the dialog so how can you espouse respect for tolerance?

The value of my point is in no way determined by how I choose to frame it. I do not 'respect the dialog' because I do not recognize the necessity of the dialog. This is not a topic which should be up for debate.

It seems like a double standard to claim you don't care about other peoples moral standards, while proclaiming to care about being tolerant.

I still do not understand why you think I should respect moral standards I find entirely repugnant.

Regardless, I would say others are just as entitled to say they don't have to meet anyone elses expectations when it comes to personal values or their own sense of morality.

Homophobes do not have to meet anyone else's expectations when it comes to recognizing equal rights for homosexuals. All they have to do is mind their own business.

People have to agree to disagree. And people have to realize not everything is tolerable. Sex is not a civil right.

Who gets to decide what is, and is not, a civil right?

The United States code presently defines marriage as between that of one man and one woman. Religion and it's definitions are separate and have their understanding along that same line as well.

That is how it is presently defined. Hopefully, that definition will soon be obsolete.

People have a right to opine about that. And it is a myth that homosexual relationship under civil contract does not affect society. If 'marriage' was so benign as all that to mean nothing, polygamy would be legal.

Polygamy is only illegal for the same backwards, bigoted reasons gay marriage is illegal. Many cultures elsewhere in the world practice polygamy.

What is interesting when one takes a sober look at those statistics is, there's very little tolerance for the will of the people that let that to happen.

It is lucky for you that your rights aren't held hostage by a religious majority electorate. Of course, you don't recognize these things as rights, but I guess that is the privilege of being in the majority.

That all being said, I have to ask: is your listing of your religious views as 'atheist' ironic? Your argument looks like something ripped straight out of the Family Research Council handbook, minus Jesus namedropping and Bible citations.