Questions about bigotry.

[ChriswUfGator]

What makes him a bigot?  Him wanting to keep Christian references or being opposed to gay marraige?

I'd say opposing gay marriage pretty conclusively makes you a bigot. The arguments are the same as they were in the 1950's, and against every minority before that. Just a bunch of illogical/irrational excuses with some religious tripe thrown in for good measure. None of it really makes any sense.

As far as keeping the "christian" references, I don't necessarily believe they are christian references, just an intended reference to whatever supreme being someone happens to believe in. If it said "one nation under christ" it would already have been stricken. God is a generic term, meaning different things to different people. That's why it remains.

[NotNow]

While I don't condone the kind of behavior shown by the council recently, I would defend a person's right to follow their own religious beliefs and even to refer to them when discussing or explaining a decision.  Whether or not that decision making process was proper for an elected official can be judged by the constituents of that person.

As far as gay marriage, I don't agree that opposing gay marriage conclusively makes anyone a bigot.  The issue is one of morals.  Your moral code is obviously different from Mr. Yarborough's.  Many people's moral codes are generally in line with their religious beliefs, or that of their parents.  Gay marriage is not legal in this state and I don't see how being on the opposite side of the issue makes anyone a bigot.  I can see your parallels with racial discrimination but I don't think that a direct comparison can be made.

I think the marriage issue is one of public policy.  Marriage is a religious institution and should remain so.  Government should get out of the marriage business and quit subsidizing coupling of any kind.   

The bottom line for me is that both you and Mr. Yarborough are entitled to your opinions.  If his constituents think he was wrong then they will let him know at the ballot box. 

[finehoe]

http://voices.washingtonpost.com/right-now/2010/05/covering_gay_marriage.html

[NotNow]

I honestly can not argue with your logic.  But I still understand that there are many who have a religious objection and want to voice it.  Again, my answer is to make "marriage" something that you do at your church and get government out of subsidizing couples and children.  Marriage is a commitment to God and your mate, not the state.  I know that the same people that I am defending would argue with me, and I am aware of the "slippery slope" argument, but that is how I see it. 

[braeburn]

I honestly can not argue with your logic.  But I still understand that there are many who have a religious objection and want to voice it.  Again, my answer is to make "marriage" something that you do at your church and get government out of subsidizing couples and children.  Marriage is a commitment to God and your mate, not the state.  I know that the same people that I am defending would argue with me, and I am aware of the "slippery slope" argument, but that is how I see it. 

It is very distasteful to see these types of things being written by people and yet they fail to realize one very fundamental truth even after they write: it IS possible to be gay AND a Christian. People talk about "gays" as if they are something completely separate. Almost as if we have our own "gay version" of religion or we are not allowed to join the club.

The issue is one of morals.  Your moral code is obviously different from Mr. Yarborough's.  Many people's moral codes are generally in line with their religious beliefs, or that of their parents.

Not trying to point fingers at anyone specific, or even you, NotNow, but I constantly see this type of thought process on the entire matter.

I have a question for the people reading:

Was Britney Spears' 24 hour "just for fun" marriage meaningful or moral? Or how about the way society portrays marriage on television and radio? Who wants to marry a millionaire, or marry this or that, the bachelor(ette).... are these moral?

That is precisely like Mr. Yarborough and many others who are using their "religion" as a weapon to further their agenda. Either that, or instead they use someone else's "different religion" as a cop-out crutch to prevent their agenda from being thwarted.

[thelakelander]

These guys can have their personal beliefs.  We all do.  However, I just want our representatives, like Yarborough and Redman, to spend more time and passion actually improving this city's quality of life.  Redman has been on the council for a couple of years now and I can't think of one thing he's done or advocated to make downtown a better place.  He's the complete opposite of Suzanne Jenkins, who happened to be very passionate about the district she was elected to represent.

[NotNow]

I think you are being overly sensitive.  I did not mean to suggest that you could not be gay and a christian.  I am simply suggesting that people who voice a religious objection to gay marriage should not be called "bigots".  To simply state that "religion is being used as a weapon" ignores many years of religious dogma which has condemned homosexuality.  Right, wrong, out of date, ignorant, all of these arguments can be made but for many, this "moral code" is just how they were educated and it is still the predominant view in the worlds religions IMHO.  My argument is to feel free to condemn the government for its stand, and even debate the churches which do not recognize your sexuality, but I don't see the logic or the purpose of calling folks who have grown up this way "bigots".  Before it is brought up, I understand the parallels with the civil rights fight for blacks, but I don't thing that they are an equal situation. I realize that to many here that even suggesting that others could question the morality of gay marriage makes me a "bigot".  I would answer that only those that close their minds to the ideas of others are really "bigoted".

Britney Spears?  Really?  Of course all of the crap you named is immoral...but not illegal.  I don't believe anyone should watch that stuff but that is just my opinion.

[NotNow]

I will agree that there is a lack of understanding here.  To abandon reasoned debate and continuously insult others who have a different opinion than yours seems...quite intolerant:

Main Entry: big·ot
Pronunciation: \ˈbi-gət\
Function: noun
Etymology: French, hypocrite, bigot
Date: 1660
: a person 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

[NotNow]

Perhaps you should review the thread and the basis of my posts.  My arguments here is that those persons who oppose "gay marriage", are "Christian", or happen to be white males are not automatically "bigots".  If "X" church teaches that homosexuality is a sin, and expects its members to follow church doctrine, then you believe that makes the church member a bigot...I do not.  I think that there is a legitimate religious right to oppose "gay marriage".  This has carried over to just being "Christian" even though most of the worlds other religions are not as forgiving as the Christian of homosexuality (I know THAT sets up an argument of its own).  And white males, well the straight ones anyway, they MUST be bigots, right?

I don't know where you are getting the "opposite meaning" thing, my statements are very clear and accurate.  No one is not allowing anyone to have "their basic rights", nor is anyone being "banned from happily living their own lives".  It is my belief that gays live a pretty free life in this country, although I am sure that they are more comfortable in larger urban communities where open homosexuality is more common and accepted by the public.  Many more rural areas contain a population that is not as accepting and I freely admit that.  But my argument is that "marriage" is a religious ceremony that the state should not be involved in.  I believe that if you want to get married, either find or start a church that will do it and get on with it.  I believe that the state should not subsidize any form of relationship.  I understand that the current "marriage" tax advantages were designed to encourage families and marriage.  To return to the Constitutional argument, the federal government has no dog in that fight, and should tax all persons equally IMHO.  

I am not sure where you got "reverse racism" or a scam out of this either.  I have previously posted that I believe that anyone should be able to live the life that they want.  I don't care what you stick your little wee wee in at home, just behave civilly while outside it.  As far as I personally am concerned, that goes for polygamy as well.  I think we need laws to protect children, animals, the mentally disabled and the elderly from perverts but the rest of you can go about your business as you see fit.  But I understand if people are opposed to my views on religious or moral grounds, and I believe that we can all live together under some common laws.  Therefore, the point of my previous posts in this thread is NOT anti gay, but defending the rights of others to disagree based on their own moral or religious or personal values.  I know that many who post here are gay, and I have been put down pretty hard by some of them.  I understand and am trying to see from their point of view.  I am asking that you try to see others point of view as well.

And finally, I know that you have a problem with me, but the vitriol and insults in your posts do nothing to forward your points.  

[fsujax]

Lake, I agree with you. I miss Suzanne. She was great for Downtown causes.

[NotNow]

I am saying that a person can hold a religious objection to homosexuality. That is not bigotry. Along the lines of your own argument, what business is that of yours?

I am not personally opposed to polygamy, but I understand if someone has a religious objection to it.  I oppose prostitution on moral and health grounds, but I won't begrudge someone arguing for it on the grounds of personal freedom. 

[NotNow]

Well, I'll just agree to disagree then.  

I don't see any basis to compare your arguments for baptists and fundementalists.  I'm not sure how you are relating the two subjects.

[NotNow]

I would refer you to my earlier post, where I asked you to review the thread because you apparently missed the point of my posts.  You have ecome what you are arguing against.

[finehoe]

I am saying that a person can hold a religious objection to homosexuality. That is not bigotry.

What if they have religious objection to race mixin' (which was commonly cited during the 50's and 60's).  Is that bigotry?

[NotNow]

No, people can hold any religious view that they choose to.  That is called religious freedom.  Many churches feel that sex outside of marriage is wrong.  i will use the Westboro Baptist people as an example, I am sure that both of us despise these people.  But I am unwilling to "outlaw" their church.  Their activities must be within the laws of our society, and many of us may want to change the laws to be more restrictive of this bunch, but they are free to believe as they want.  Just as a church which espouses white supremacy, or gay rights, or islamic caliphate is free to believe and preach in this country.  As long as they live within our laws.