Questions about bigotry.

[NotNow]

We can make this easier.  What part of this offends you and I will remove it?

[buckethead]

Unless you do not believe in God. Then you are simply a heathen...

[Clem1029]

I do, notnow, all the time.  Unfortunately you have to be capable of doing the same thing in order to be able to notice it.

By the way, your post is a backhanded insult, it kind of defeats the sentiment that you are trying to express.

And in one post, here is Dare's approach to the forum - he can insult, mock, and offend whoever he likes, and nobody is allowed to call him on it.

To paraphrase Scott Van Pelt - "Useful post, that."

[Dog Walker]

What is "bigoted" or not obviously depends on where you are standing.  

Old joke:  I stand firm on my principles.  You are stubborn.  He is a pig-headed fool."

I really, really don't like graffiti taggers. (Would consider thumb removal just punishment).  Does that make me "bigoted" against taggers?

Bigotry cannot have any objective definition as it is too emotionally loaded word.  It's an opinion.

[finehoe]

Government should get out of the marriage business and quit subsidizing coupling of any kind. 

But the point is, it IS in the marriage business, and as long as it is, it needs to treat its homosexual and its heterosexual citizens the same.

[buckethead]

This^

I am one who beleives the gubmint should retire from the marriage bidness.

[NotNow]

^Again, I agree.

[NotNow]

I certainly mean no offense, as I have stated repeatedly on this thread and others.  I'll be the first to admit that I have not "walked a mile in your shoes". 

Modified...under duress.  But I am allowed to express the above sentiment and I want to get that out, at least.

[JagFan07]

The government has no business granting my wife and I legal advantage because we are heterosexual, married and have children. If to people of the same sex cannot enjoy the same familial and tax advantages, why should straigh couples.

I believe in equal protection under the law.

The phrase "And Justice for all." is thrown around quite casually but it certainly fits here. Homosexuals are treated unjustly regarding marital status.

If marriage were a strictly religious institution, it would not be an issue.

BH, that is my point exactly.  The state should not be involved in a religious institution at all, and should show NO preference in taxation or anyother responsibility or service.  It seems that this view makes me a bigot on this forum.  

Marriage is not a "religious institution", it is a social union or legal contract between individuals.

[finehoe]

I am one who beleives the gubmint should retire from the marriage bidness.

But until that happens, it needs to treat its homosexual and its heterosexual citizens the same.

[buckethead]

I am one who beleives the gubmint should retire from the marriage bidness.

But until that happens, it needs to treat its homosexual and its heterosexual citizens the same.

We remain in agreement.

[Tripoli1711]

I think they are two separate and distinct concepts, Jagfan.  At least to me they are.  "Marriage" as I see it is a solemn vow I give to my wife and to God.  I feel that "marriage" is a three way covenant between herself, the Lord and me.  That is how I was raised in my faith.

What the government recognizes in that covenant I feel is a contract with certain specific legal benefits.

Given this rubric and being Christian, I have always felt discomfort with the idea of homosexuals getting "married" in a Church setting, based on Bible teachings.

I have no problem at all with a union between homosexuals receiving the same legal contractual benefits through the government that I do.

[buckethead]

I think you share the feeling of most Americans, yet for some reason, polling shows a distinct disfavor for the concept of gay marriage.

This is where the law should overrule any public opinion polls. Equal protection under the law is the most important principle in our national existence.

[Tripoli1711]

I  honestly believe the word "marriage" probably stops a noticeable percentage in their tracks.  That's where it stops me.

If the question of whether or not to allow homosexual civil unions, receiving the same protections and benefits from a legal standpoint as a heterosexual marriage.... opposition would drop.  I don't know how much but I bet it would.

[NotNow]

I think that we have found a point of agreement.  Many people are affected by the states preferential tax treatment, including gays and single persons.  The USG has no Constitutional authority to treat its citizens differently for any reason.   "Marriage" is a religious ceremony and should be rht responsibility of the church.  

Whew!  See what a little logical and reaasoned discussion will do?!?