Yup. I've asked it in several forms and never gotten a straight answer. No doubt it's because there is no answer that would support their bigoted legislation.
i'm not cool with homosexuality. i voted against the proposition, nevertheless. does that make me a bigot? i just think it's too easy to label someone who has a different perspective. too simplistic.
No. A bigot would have voted for it. You are, for lack of a better word, "american" in how you voted, i.e., you voted based on the constitution and bill of rights. You fail the "devoted" portion of chance's handy-dandy definition. Having an opinion is not bigotry - regardless of how the aforementioned definition generalizes it. It's acting on that opinion with disregard to cultural and/or societal impact. So I will change my previous comment accordingly so as not to overly offend.
Great post, drox. We could put that up there with monkeys flinging poo, to give people an idea of what would be good guidelines regarding D&D "behavior," and how to have a discussion here without generating WWIII. Seriously. (of course, I would have a hard time following it, but what the hell... I try to act somewhat like that. it's difficult. sometimes I'll read a post of mine and wonder, "now why did I post that??" ...know what I mean?) Keep D&D Civil.
That's awesome! Does that mean you think the amendment was unjust, despite your personal feelings about the subject? That's what I wish others could have recognized.
By the way, the fact that you are against homosexuality yet still voted against this proposition is incredibly respectable.
irony - the use of words to express something other than and especially the opposite of the literal meaning b : a usually humorous or sardonic literary style or form characterized by irony c : an ironic expression or utterance. you cant be serious? you are comparing child rape to gay marriage? you are comparing something as hideous as child molestation/rape and all the devestation that comes with that for the victim to two consenting adults whom you will never meet or be directly affected by having a state-recognized union? as a christian, i am deepley offended by your insensitivity. david cross has a funny bit on this mentality, if i may paraphrase... psychiatrist - "so debbie, your father molested and raped you when you were 11 years old. tell me, what was that like for you?" debbie - "oh, it was like totally gross and stuff. like two guys having sex."
Cutting to the heart of the matter. Good for you. First, I have to give you props like everyone else has for voting against the prop even though you're not "cool with homosexuality." This thought has crossed my mind too, regarding race. If I'm in a bad part of Williamsburg late at night, and see a group of young black kids approaching me alone on the street, I'm going to have some (fleeting) paranoid thoughts cross my mind that I wouldn't have if it was a group of white kids. Does that make me racist? Depends a lot on how broad your definition of racist is. Part of me (the majority) says yes, it's racist- I had a thought and made judgement based on race, no matter how fleeting. It doesn't get any simpler than that. Another part feels that it's important how I act, what I do, what I say, and how I vote that really counts. But one can never discount how our unconscious thoughts affect the things we do and the things we say, and our uncoscious is affected greatly by our social programming and our upbringing. Anyway, I'm getting a little off topic here. I guess I'd want to ask you what you do in your day to day life- how do you treat the gays you know? My guess is, very well and kindly. In another thread I gave Svpernaut a lot of grief because he's 'nice' to the gays he knows but then goes out and votes for this prop. His actions (voting) speak louder to me. Now, MadMax- what I'm going to say may be harsh, but I want to preface it by saying that you've made great contributions here and I think you're brave and I respect what you're saying. If you're not cool with homosexuality, then I'm going to guess that you think that it's "wrong" or it's a sin. (If I'm wrong then feel free to correct me.) I'm not going to touch the religion issue right now, just leaving that out altogether. If you really think that it's wrong, that their lifestyle is wrong, that their relationships are wrong, that their love is wrong... then I'd have to say I think you're a bigot. A very nice, relatively open minded one. But you have a prejudiced idea about a minority group of people who are innocent, who are born the way there just as sure as a black man is born with dark skin. It's wrong and I sincerely hope you'll come to think the same yourself someday. A little side story here: I once had a boss say this after we got lunch at McDonalds, and he was angry about the manager there- a black man. He said, and I quote: "That's why you don't hire n*ggers. I mean, I'm not a racist or anything..." I was stunned, but was too much of a wimp to object. He literally said "I'm not a racist" directly after "That's why you don't hire n*ggers." I was totally stunned and amazed at the audacity and the idiocy. I just sat quiet and didn't respond. No bigot ever thinks they are a bigot. None of us would want to think that of ourselves. Most think you actually have to put on a white hood and burn churches and hurt or kill people before you earn that title.
I was not comparing them. I was using an extreme case to illustrate how 'bigot' is the wrong word for what I am.
i think homosexuality is wrong. i think this amendment is wrong. i fail to see why my viewpoints on marriage and what not that i get from my moral/religious background should be enforced on others. for the life of me i can't see how other people aren't able to think like that.
Good post. But I think bigotry is simply the basing of actions on prejudices. We all have opinions/prejudices. It's the ability to "see the other side" that allows for some of us to refrain from being bigoted even if we don't agree. Therefore I don't think max is bigoted. He is opinionated. Yet open minded. Liberal.
Read your post again - you contradict yourself. Myself and several others have already pointed that out. And you are a bigot.
you made an analogy b/t gay marriage and child rape, as if they are both equally bad. that might not make you a bigot, but it certianly shows a degree of ignorance.
Frankly, I think the gay homos ruined it all for them own selves. If they hadn't insisted on walking the aisle to "Jesus Saves" by Slayer and making the blood sacrifice of a (heterosexual) virgin and a Black Mass Prayer to Beelzebub part of their wedding vows, then the open-minded people and otherwise good religious people of Texas would have had no reason to favor a constitutional amendment prohibiting the possibility of gay marriage. If the gay homos hadn't done such extreme things, it wouldn't have been necessary to alter the Constitution of Texas to reflect the values of the good people who would really rather not support such heinous satanic acts. Seriously. No, really. What?
here's what i think: 1. i think if Jesus were physically with us right now...and this question were asked...he'd draw in the sand a bit...look up...and ask about the divorce rate for heterosexual marriages. then he'd ask about the divorce rate in the church. and i think he might say something like, "tell ya what...when you guys get marriage right, then you can start worrying about how the government (Caesar) defines it." not that i think he'd pat gay marriage as a concept on the back..or support it. because i don't believe he would. but he has a way of addressing the heart. 2. i like the idea of government being out of the business of marriage altogether. i like the idea of civil unions. if you want to be married in a church..you can be...but as to the government, it's a civil union. and churches can choose who can or can't be married in their own churches. meanwhile, if you want to get married in a courthouse..fine...it's called a civil union. and any two people can be. 3. i'm tired of the church focusing on these flashpoint issues and not being the hands and feet of Christ in the world. i'm not condemning all churches...i'm really not condemning any churches in particular. i'll throw myself into the mix, as a believer and a member of Christ's church. the focus should not be so heavy on influencing government policy...but rather, serving the world...as our Lord did and continues to do. we've allowed the church to be synonomous with a political party and certain ideals from that party. that's super-dangerous. Christ was offered political power during his temptation in the desert. He rejected it. Follow him, already. Lead through service and sacrifice. 4. my marriage isn't a two-party deal. it's a three-party deal...my wife, me and God. not everyone views marriage that way. my marriage was in a church. we were puposeful about making sure the service focused on Him. that's what we wanted. that's our definition of marriage...a Christian definition of marriage. i don't think God intends that for anything other than men and women together. that's my belief. but that's not the struggle i see homosexuals fighting for. they're trying to make sure they can receive health benefits within their relationship...trying to make sure they don't have to worry about whether or not they're entitled to the house if their partner dies. and on and on. and you know what else I believe...God loves those people SOOOO much. the church has failed to communicate that, and that breaks my heart..truly. He loves them more than we can possibly imagine. so I owe them nothing less than my love, too. that doesn't have to mean i have to agree with them on every topic. it doesn't mean i have to affirm a relationship between a man and a man...or a woman and a woman. because i won't do that. but i will respect them. their screwups are no bigger than mine. i'm no closer to God than they are.
actually, by your own definition you are a bigot. you obviously think homosexual marriage is not acceptable. that is your opinion and you are fully entitled to it. the problem is that you state it to be an absolute fact, where many do not see it as such. you show alot of intolerance on this issue, which im pretty sure goes against the true message of jesus. what would jesus do? keep in mind that he was tolerant and accepted even prostitues and befriended a few of them, mary magdalene (whom my church was named for) being the most obvious example. i wish more people like you had the attitude of joel osteen. nobody would say that he approves of homosexulity, but he says that he is not the one to pass judgement. his role is to show love and acceptance towards ALL of gods children - which would include all the homos. that is a very christian way of thinking...i like that.
i agree. i think that mr. osteen is able to discern (to comprehend or come to a desicion) that he should not pass judgement upon others.
