Questions about bigotry.

[BridgeTroll]

Alright, I give up.  The victim card has been played and it won't be taken off the table.  The blanket assertion of "you people", which of course means all Christians not having any idea what their own religion teaches is totally cool.  My taking umbrage with it somehow means that I am some detestable person attempting to persecute all homosexuals simply for being homosexual.  Nevermind the things I have actually said.. I am damning the whole lot of you just for defending my own personal faith. 

I swear I used to read some of these threads and look at people talk about how they had given up trying to deal with you guys when you get this way and were leaving the board altogether and think "how silly", but I see where they were coming from now.  One cannot say anything that is not a regurgitation of your own philosophy without somehow making a person attack on you and your lifestyle or beliefs.  It's totally bogus, at least concerning me.  But once you decree that I clearly have hate in my heart its now an accepted and irrefutable fact.  Judge, Jury and Moral Executioner you are.  That's fine but I now agree it is entirely pointless to try to discuss.

It's simply quite absurd that you get to make blanket assertions that a Christian- who means you no ill will and has said over and over again in the last couple hours that you should be allowed to enter into a civil marriage with all the same rights and benefits as a heterosexual- doesn't know what the hell he's talking about regarding his own faith.  Then when that person gets upset at that statement, simply attempt to paint him as an intolerant ass who further doesn't understand his faith, because Jesus didn't like intolerant asses, and then when I call you on how simply absurd that series of events is.. you tell me that I was doing it to you first. 

Amazing and impossible to reason with and now I have finally learned better than to try. 

Welcome to the club!

[JC]

I think a church should be able to deny anyone anything it wants to.  However if their is a church willing to marry gay people than they should be able to do that as well, and gay couples should have the exact same legal rights as straight couples. 

I am however, under the impression that fighting to be part of a system of intolerance is sort of silly.  If established religion does not want homosexuals, why are they so desperate to be involved at all.  The bible says every manner of horrible thing against them so what exactly are you fighting for and what does the government have to do with it?  I guess I am in the civil unions camp but for different reasons, more like, why bother?

Defending bigotry makes you a bigot as well NN, deny it because it doesn't feel good to be called that but it is what you are. 

I do not think bigotry should be outlawed, thoughts are ok, however crazy they seem, its the action that is the problem. 

[buckethead]

The actions being discrimination?

At what point should individuals, private groups and orginizations be lawfully permitted to discriminate?

Should a church be allowed to be exclusively black (African american, if you prefer)? (My answer: yes)

Should an private business be allowed to refuse to hire Christians? (My answer: yes)

Should an individual business owner be allowed to refuse to serve gays? (My answer... you guessed it... yes)

Should the government (legislatively or departmentally) be allowed the same the same leway? (my answer: No)

[JC]

The actions being discrimination?

At what point should individuals, private groups and orginizations be lawfully permitted to discriminate?

Should a church be allowed to be exclusively black (African american, if you prefer)? (My answer: yes)

Should an private business be allowed to refuse to hire Christians? (My answer: yes)

Should an individual business owner be allowed to refuse to serve gays? (My answer... you guessed it... yes)

Should the government (legislatively or departmentally) be allowed the same the same leway? (my answer: No)

Maybe its nothing but you did not capitalize American behind African, just curious if that was intentional?

I am on the fence about this because I think government forcing inclusion has resulted in exponential increases in tolerance for some people.  I dont know, its just not all that black and white because of the history of intolerance in the US.

[buckethead]

The lower case a was unintentional and of no significance.

People should always remain free to choose association for themselves.

As for Christians who believe homsexuality is a sin, it's kinda what the instruction manual says.

One could argue that biology suggests homosexuality is not a natural behavior, but a quick scan of animal behavior, as well as an honest assessment of biological variance (in horomone levels, for instance) says otherwise. That said, if the instruction manual says it's wrong; then those wishing to assemble the final product illustrated in the manual should comply.

[JC]

The lower case a was unintentional and of no significance.

People should always remain free to choose association for themselves.

As for Christians who believe homsexuality is a sin, it's kinda what the instruction manual says.

One could argue that biology suggests homosexuality is not a natural behavior, but a quick scan of animal behavior, as well as an honest assessment of biological variance (in horomone levels, for instance) says otherwise. That said, if the instruction manual says it's wrong; then those wishing to assemble the final product illustrated in the manual should comply.

Yeah, I am not disagreeing with you, at least not yet.

I am not sure I am going to articulate this point very well so please give me some leeway before you attempt to thrash me

Religious leaders have extraordinary power over their followers, we have seen this in multiple instances from suicide bombings, suicide pacts, assassinations and other destructive behaviors.  Now I realize that not every religious person is capable of carrying out these acts and would argue there are only a special few who would, however, I believe that the they the propensity to act in such destructive ways comes from the same place as the tendency toward being bigoted against certain groups.  I think it is simply fear that makes people behave this way, fear of going to hell, fear of being an outcast, fear of being a pariah, fear of loss of love, whatever, its about fear plain and simple.  And in my humble opinion, when someone is acting on fear they are being irrational.  People place their religion in a neat little box inside their head where it is compartmentalized from their rational thoughts, they protect is and nurture it.  I dont mean to make this sound like an anti religious rant but I have a problem with people using the mind control of religion to make people hate!  I also think that religions can be particularly destructive because their politics, or messages of hate can easily flow into the workplace, or government.  There is evidence of this all the time!  Religions (First Baptist) are EXTREMELY powerful social networks and people will act according to doctrine while outside the workplace and this can be harmful to others.  To simplify, intolerance breeds intolerance!

[buckethead]

^A reasonable stance.

Let's remember; these are the tactics used by almost all who wish to ascend to power.

Every great war, religious or otherwise, has been due to the very ills you ennumerate above. Cliques are no different. Even outcasts will form cliques that are exclusive.

Many religious leaders actually denounce such actions. Jesus Christ being one of those. (Jesus was a radical)

Me: antisocial (but amiable).

[JagFan07]

Are Jesse Jackson and 65% of African Americans bigots?

http://www.villagevoice.com/2004-05-18/news/whose-dream/1

Whose Dream?
Why the black church opposes gay marriage
By Keith Boykin Tuesday, May 18 2004

Maybe it was destiny. As the nation commemorated the 50th anniversary of the Brown v. Board of Education decision on May 17, gays and lesbians launched a new chapter in their own struggle for equality. But the black clergy that lit the fire for change half a century ago is now out to dampen that flame, at least where same-sex marriage is concerned.
Reverend Peter Gomes attributes black social conservatism to assimilation

"If the KKK opposes gay marriage, I would ride with them," Reverend Gregory Daniels, a black minister from Chicago, announced from the pulpit in February. A few eyebrows were raised, mostly in the gay community, but that reaction was overshadowed by the disappointment with a much more prominent Chicago minister, Reverend Jesse Jackson. In a speech at Harvard Law School in February, Jackson spoke out against same-sex marriage and rejected comparisons between the civil rights and gay rights movements. "Gays were never called three-fifths human in the Constitution," he said, and "they did not require the Voting Rights Act to have the right to vote."

Was this the Jesse Jackson I thought I knew? I first met him in 1984 when he brought his Rainbow Coalition to my college campus for a presidential campaign that openly included gays and lesbians. I was with him again in the 1990s at Harvard Law School, when he came to lend his support to our movement for faculty diversity. I traveled with him to Zimbabwe in 1997 to speak up for gays and lesbians in that country. All along I had assumed that he supported full civil rights for us, but apparently I was wrong.

In my lifetime, African Americans were denied the right to marry white people, and now we who are black dare to deny matrimonial rights to gay peopleâ€"people like me. In a recent poll, 65 percent of blacks opposed same-sex marriage, although other surveys have shown strong support for laws banning discrimination against gays. What offends most black people is the comparison between the gay-marriage struggle and the black struggle for civil rights.

In the past six months, dozens of black ministers across the country have spoken out against same-sex marriage. And despite the common liberal portrayal of these clergy as stooges of the white religious right, some of the ministers, like Jackson and Reverend Walter Fauntroy, who once represented Washington, D.C., in Congress, have long records fighting for progressive causes. Has the black church succumbed to the machinations of the white religious right? "I'm sure they're being co-opted, but they don't need a great deal of co-optation," says Reverend Peter Gomes, a black Baptist minister. "I think they come to the prejudice on their own."

Gomes attributes the black social conservatism to racial assimilation. "The African American religious community has spent so much time trying to prove to the white community that it is the same, that for all intents and purposes it shares many of the worst prejudices of the white community."

Gomes's perspective may be influenced by his identity: He's openly gay, and the chaplain at Harvard University. That's a very different constituency than he would find in a black church, and no doubt it's significant that support for same-sex marriage is strongest among black ministers who preach at white churches. There are notable exceptions to this rule, such as reverends Al Sharpton and Joseph Lowery. Support is also strong among secular black leaders such as Coretta Scott King, Carol Moseley Braun, and Julian Bond.

It's puzzling that the black church is so much more conservative on same-sex marriage than it is on other divisive issues such as abortion. The answer may lie in the invisibility of the black gay and lesbian community. While the black church embraces single mothers, drug addicts, and ex-cons, it does not embrace black homosexuals largely because they haven’t organized to make their presence felt. Instead, black gays and lesbians have been shamed and silenced into a kind of "don't ask, don’t tell" relationship with the church.

A few years ago I interviewed Reverend H. Beecher Hicks, pastor of a popular black church in Washington, D.C. Hicks strongly condemned homosexuality and told me that "those who seek to find a way to legitimize this particular lifestyle will meet with no success." But days later when I visited his church for Sunday service, I recognized a number of black gay men in the congregation. Some were members of the choir, others were ushers, and a few had even more prominent roles. I can't imagine how this church would survive without black gay men, and I can’t imagine that the homophobia would continue from the pulpit if they spoke up against it.

But they don't speak up. Far too many black gays and lesbians maintain a truce with the church that allows them to serve quietly, and this conspiracy of silence enables the church to remain simultaneously the most homophobic institution in the black community and the most homo-tolerant. While black gays and lesbians have been sidelined, the white gay community has been caught off guard. As conservatives wisely used black ministers to speak against same-sex marriage, the gay community put out images of white couples and put white spokespeople forward, thereby creating the perception that this is an issue for white folks trying to cash in on the black struggle.

It seems obvious that black messengers are more effective than whites in communicating with black audiences. Maybe that, too, is one of the lessons of the Brown case. Despite all the progress toward integration, black people still don't trust white people, even those who suffer from discrimination themselves. Beneath the surface of racial tolerance, we're still a country divided by skin colorâ€"and certainly the gay community is divided by race.

Given their unique role straddling two worlds, black gays and lesbians may hold the key to unlocking the door of homo-tolerance in the black community. "I think the black community is going to become more accepting, more tolerant," Julian Bond predicts. "I can't place a timetable on it, but I'll tell you one thing: It depends on the degree to which black gays and lesbians begin to stand up in their churches, in their organizations, and say, 'This is me you're talking about.' That's a powerful, powerful message."
Reverend Peter Gomes attributes black social conservatism to assimilation


Keith Boykin is president of the National Black Justice Coalition, which works to build alliances between blacks and gays on the issue of marriage equality.

[BridgeTroll]

Is there a sour grapes club for people who start cryin' when it turns out that their absurd statements dont do so well under light of day?

Not at all.  The name calling and labeling people racist, homophobe, bigots, nazi, fascist, socialist, communist is so automatic and predictable it is not worth having a discussion about these sensitive subjects.  It certainly is a reflection of political discourse in this country from both the left and right.  It has infiltrated nearly all aspects of discussion making formerly reasonable people seemingly unreasonable.  Us vs them... we are right... they are wrong...

Meh... enjoy...

[finehoe]

As for Christians who believe homsexuality is a sin, it's kinda what the instruction manual says.

This is the whole problem I have with it.  Yes, the "instruction manual" says gay sex is a no-no, but it also says lots of things fall into that category, like wearing clothes with mixed fabrics, eating various food stuffs, etc.  Plenty of "Christians" acknowledge these other prohibitions are outdated, so why do they fixate on the gay part?  Similarly, their instruction manual rails against divorce much more than it does about homosexuality, yet there is no effort to make divorce illegal in the secular world like there is against gay marriage.  Why the disconnect?  And yes, the answer seems to be bigotry.

[Sportmotor]

Humans are fallible, anything humans make is thus, fallible. Humans wrote the bible. Thus the bible is fallible.

Lets not forget that in teh way back when the bible was a means of power, such as the catlickers church priests making you pay to get into heaven in alot of points in the bible. Who also would excommunicate you if you thought the earth was anything but flat, or if you believed in science. If you believed in anything that the people who were running around yelling do this not this cause its in a book, then you are wrong and going to hell and are sinning and are bad and deserve aids and all that other bs. Its always been that way.

The bible Nay RELIGION has always been the strongest form of control in the history of man. What is stronger then scaring someone into thinking if you do this, you will burn and be tormented for all eternity unless you listen to me because god spoke to me, and if you don't believe me that's fine have fun in hell. Uh nothing.

I am not saying there isn't a big giant spaghetti monster up in the heavens watching over us. I am saying that the history of man proves that you cant take the bible word from word.

[NotNow]

Defending bigotry makes you a bigot as well NN, deny it because it doesn't feel good to be called that but it is what you are.

I do not think bigotry should be outlawed, thoughts are ok, however crazy they seem, its the action that is the problem.

You forgot to add IMO at the end of that.  The people that I am defending also have their opinion.  I am aware of the argument that the homosexual rights movement is exactly the same as the civil rights movement but I am also aware that there are many who do not believe that this is so.  Of course, you still get to call me any names you want to.

As for the second part of your post, I believe that is exactly what I was arguing.

[Sportmotor]

Deep love hu?
Gay

[NotNow]

It's easy to throw names around.  The real truth is that what you think is a settled issue is not in many people's eyes.  I will stand on my statement that your opponents should not be shouted down, and that they have a right to their opinion.  An honest appraisal of the view of others will ALWAYS result in a better outcome.

[NotNow]

A conversation assumes no name calling or derisiveness.  It allows both sides to speak without censorship.  And I would point out that this has been the point of my posts in this thread all along, so I suppose I should welcome you.