Questions about bigotry.

[NotNow]

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.

You are right, but that should change.  A legal contract should be just that.  The entire "marriage/divorce" system has been so fouled up we need to fix it now.  Get the state out of the business and if people want to make social contracts let them do it civilly, as they would any other legal agreement.

And finehoe, you are also right, in that the current situation is unfair and in my opinion Unconstitutional.  Let's change it. 

[NotNow]

Oh, and people still have a right to disagree with me, or anyone else without being called a "bigot".

[JagFan07]

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.

We are in complete agreement then. The church should follow its own doctrines on what it recognizes as marriage and the government should follow its laws in recognizing the union. 2 men or 2 women getting married has no affect on the validity of my marriage, and I see no issue with it. As Chris Rock said "Gay people got a right to be as miserable as everybody else."

[Tripoli1711]

Who do you mean by "you guys"?

[NotNow]

Sooooo, is that your point in this discussion?   Everyone else is a bigot?  Really?

[buckethead]

Using the most liberal definition of the word, yes.

(Not liberal as in left/right)

[NotNow]

Oh, and people still have a right to disagree with me, or anyone else without being called a "bigot".

True.  Its the people that agree with you that get called 'bigots'.

It appears to me that only those that agree completely with you are not "bigots" in your world.   Hmmm

[Tripoli1711]

Using the most liberal definition of the word, yes.

(Not liberal as in left/right)

LOL....?  I'm confused what this refers to.

[buckethead]

Bigot: a person obstinately or intolerantly devoted to his or her own opinions and prejudices;

[Clem1029]

Oh, and people still have a right to disagree with me, or anyone else without being called a "bigot".

True.  Its the people that agree with you that get called 'bigots'.

It appears to me that only those that agree completely with you are not "bigots" in your world.   Hmmm

*sirens go off* And we have our winner!

Tell him what he's won Alex!

You get to be insulted, mocked, put down, and verbally abused by StephenDare! with no recourse whatsover!! Way to go!

[buckethead]

Using the most liberal definition of the word, yes.

(Not liberal as in left/right)

LOL....?  I'm confused what this refers to.

: a person obstinately or intolerantly devoted to his or her own opinions and prejudices;

We are all devoted, to some degree, to our own opinions. One must discern what would constitutue "obstinately" to really make the call according to this definition.
A liberal (<not strictly conforming to the stated definition) usage of the word could therefore cast all in a bigoted light.

[NotNow]

Have you not read the thread?  We called for completely equal treatment of ALL citizens by the state.  We called for marriage to be handled by the churches.  Your church can marry you to  whoever you want.  If they won't, go to one that you philosophically agree with.  How is that wrong?

[NotNow]

all of which is so much worse than having some fundamentalist jack off explain his quaint theories about sinfulness, abortion murdering, and homosex!

(That of course, is only the prize for second place!)

What are you talking about?  Who is this?

[NotNow]

I can see that there will not be any resolution with you.  Let's just disengage and agree that we disagree.

[ChriswUfGator]

Oh, and people still have a right to disagree with me, or anyone else without being called a "bigot".

True.  Its the people that agree with you that get called 'bigots'.

It appears to me that only those that agree completely with you are not "bigots" in your world.   Hmmm

Nope, mine too.

And FWIW I made a decision after my first post in this thread to avoid this exact debate with you, because you're just not dealing with a full deck. I could get into logical comparisons and shred the fundamental basis of your religious beliefs in marriage as having to exclude homosexuals, and it doesn't matter. You're going to believe what you're going to believe anyway. Anybody who actually thinks this one out can't avoid the only logical conclusion. That's why people with your beliefs are completely unable to argue on this topic without resorting to vague biblical tripe. It just makes no sense.

But yeah, your beliefs are bigoted. Same arguments were used against blacks, jews, native americans, the irish, hell pretty much every other group of people on the planet at one time or another, and ironically enough, including christians at several points in history. Seems like you'd get the irony. Why exactly was Christ crucified by the Romans again? LMFAO. You people miss the entire point of your own !@#$%&* books.