If a person has stated on several occasions that marriage is between a man and a woman,

[VMI Dem]

is that person a homophobe?

Is there a set of circumstances under which that person would not be considered bigoted toward gays?

[seabeyond]

1. no. i do not see you have to be bigoted against gays. i think that is code for many that are

as a whole i see it as ignorance. like so much that is happening on both left and right. i see it can as easily be conditioning and that is not something out of principal or religious belief, just an idea that has never been or allowed to be challenged.

[muffin1]

2. 'Yes' to the first, and 'no' to the second. n/t

[renie408]

9. I think that if you are a homophobe, it would probably result in your being bigoted

towards gays.

My sister tells me all the time that she has nothing against 'the gays'. She just doesn't think 'we' should 'allow' 'them' to get married. It isn't God's plan, you see.


Her language shows that while she is not consciously homophobic, secretly she is. And that results in her bigoted behavior using God as cover.

[muffin1]

12. My father is the same way.

Funny though, he is fine with seafood, working on Sundays, clothes made from different fibers, different crops growing side by side, shaving, the death penalty, etc., etc.
:-(

[msanthrope]

16. My cousin used to use the term "the gays" until I started using the

term "the Christians".

She got it. Took a bit of thought on her part, but she got it.

[tabbycat31]

119. I just started using the term "Christian lifestyle"

on another forum because I'm so damn sick and offended when I see the term "gay lifestyle"

[QC]

3. God is in the mix! n/t

[DURHAM D]

5. Hi BO.

Thanks for taking time from your busy schedule at the WH to post on DU.

[DURHAM D]

4. YES. NO. NT

[donheld]

85. +1

[Goblinmonger]

6. Yes. No.

Ignorance is no excuse for bigotry.

Just put race in instead of orientation and you have your answer.

If a person stated on several occasions that marriage is between two white people, is that person a racist?
Is there a set of circumstances under which that person would not be considered bigoted towards non-whites?

Sad thing it that Loving v. Virginia was not all that long ago.

[cbdo2007]

17. race and sexual orientation are not equal comparisons

[QC]

18. Please explain. n/t

[muffin1]

19. This should be rich. n/t

[bullwinkle428]

21. ...

:popcorn:

[GodlessBiker]

23. I don't know what "equal" can mean in this context. They are analogous.

Equal is not the right word. The two struggles have different people, in different times, fighting for different issues.

However, both struggles involve oppressed minorities who have sought to overcome social stigma and both de facto and de jure discrimination within society so that they may participate within society to the fullest extent possible. The two struggles are analogous.

[Starry Messenger]

27. Do go on...

[Goblinmonger]

28. Explain the problems you have with the comparison

because I can't imagine anything good coming from you.

[Tailormyst]

31. Yes they are- neither does one have control over.

[Maru Kitteh]

33. Please back up your statement that race and sexual orientation are not comparable

Many people are waiting for your explanation.

[muffin1]

38. *crickets*

The poster must be looking desperately around the internets for something that will make sense.


:silly:

[Maru Kitteh]

41. Because you can stop being gay. - nope - because black people are born "that way" - nope -

Google
Google
Google

Google
Google
Google

DRATS!

[muffin1]

42. ROFLMAO!

:yourock:

[cbdo2007]

52. Oops, sorry everyone. My mistake. They are exactly the same.

Sorry for the confusion, I must not have taken my meds today.

[Starry Messenger]

64. I didn't know there were pills for that. n/t

[Toasterlad]

66. You Still Haven't Explained the Difference.

[Starry Messenger]

78. He'll spill it eventually

They never can help themselves. They just burst out with it when they can't stand it any longer.

[Cali_Democrat]

71. LOL. n/t

[marshall]

74. But the statement is one of fact, not an opinion

The difference between "is" and "should".

[SimonPhoenix]

121. Stop, sexual orientation is not the same as race

I'm a black male and I happen to support same sex marriage, but don't you dare compare the gay struggle to the civil rights struggles of the 60s. We should support gay marriage because gay marriage doesn't harm anyone.

[Starry Messenger]

126. So, gays aren't born gay?

Or is it the old "OMG buttsecks is nothing like my skin color" canard?

[SimonPhoenix]

128. I happen to believe they are

But you know damned well it hasn't been proven yet. If you can link me to studies proving it CONCLUSIVELY then I'll be glad to re-examine my stance on the analogy being inappropriate.

[Starry Messenger]

130. I think that you are CONCLUSIVELY offended

by the thought of your existence being the same as a gay person. I'll await proof otherwise.

[SimonPhoenix]

135. WELL

If you're asking me if I think that my existence is the same as a gay person, I don't. My existence as a black man is much more difficult. Ever have a problem catching a cab because of your sexual orientation? Didn't think so.

[Starry Messenger]

139. Like I said, I'm straight...

and I'm too poor for cabs. :rofl:

[Bluebear]

155. Ever been hung to die on a fencepost in the wilderness? Didn't think so. What an asshole.

[SimonPhoenix]

165. WOW

You're right. Matthew Shepherd wasn't just an isolated incident in Wyoming. Thousands of gay people have been lynched on fenceposts across the country. You know why people know his name? Because of how comparatively rare it is for people to turn their homophobia into murder.

[Starry Messenger]

187. You are truly ignorant.

Please, do some internet searches.

[fascisthunter]

203. actually, throughout history they have

[Behind the Aegis]

166. Can't speak for Starry, but these two faggots didn't have it easy in the taxi realm.

Cabbie Tossed 2 Guys From Taxi Because, Inevitably, They Would've Had Sex

So why did that NYC taxi driver Medhat Mohamed throw out a couple of gay passengers in Harlem? Because he was concerned that, after seeing them hugging, he was going to have to watch them have sex in the backseat!
"I wanted to pay attention to getting them to their destination instead of worrying if they were going to have sex or not," says Mohamed of passenger Paul Bruno and the male fella he shared a hug with in the backseat en route to a birthday party. "They kept hugging and kissing. He was almost sitting on his lap. And I said, 'OK, guys, come on, I'm driving.'"



http://www.queerty.com/cabbie-tossed-2-guys-from-taxi-because-inevitably-they-wouldve-had-sex-20091105/

[SimonPhoenix]

169. Well if it's okay for the cabbie to do that

then it seems that it would also be okay for the Dallas apartment complex to refuse to rent to Muslims. JUST going on a hunch here, but I'm guessing that Medhat Mohamed is a follower of Islam.

[Behind the Aegis]

173. So, discrimination of certain groups is OK as long as it is a "choice?"

I think you need to check your "internet GPS" because you have ended up in the wrong place!

[SimonPhoenix]

174. I never said it was okay

I am simply stating that Muslims (one of the most homophobic religions in the world) shouldn't be surprised to find that sometimes the shoe is put on the other foot, and that people don't like them very much either.

[Behind the Aegis]

176. You did say it was OK, but it was about Baptists and implied about those who chose certain things.

Most religions have a history of rancid homophobia, including my own. By your own standards, then you shouldn't be surprised when a gay cabbie doesn't pick you up because you "shouldn't be surprised to find that sometimes the shoe is put on the other foot, and that people don't like" you very much either. Do you see how that statement is BIGOTED? Do you also see how it is passive acceptance of bigotry?

[SimonPhoenix]

179. It's simply an observation.

You need a class in logic. If white person A punches black person B- and I comment that person B probably doesn't like person A very much, does that make me a bigot? Of course not. You might have a point in that it's passive acceptance of bigotry, but unless you've got a giant megaphone and lots of money, you'll never change people's beliefs on things like race and sexual orientation. You have to wait for them to die.

[Behind the Aegis]

182. Actually, you are the one in need of a class in logic.

Most of your arguments are nothing if not logical fallacies, poor conclusions, and inability to stay on topic.

"If white person A punches black person B- and I comment that person B probably doesn't like person A very much, does that make me a bigot? "

That doesn't even make sense.

[SimonPhoenix]

185. Really?

Does not make sense?

Let's say you're a landlord in Dallas, Texas, and you have Muslim families that want to rent from you. You remember some Muslim people dancing in the streets on 9/11 and you remember the Muslims that attacked U.S. troops as well as other Muslims in Iraq. You impute these actions to all of Islam.

You remember polls like this:

http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSN2244293620070522

You refuse to rent to the Muslim families.

Then in a different story, you have a Muslim cabbie that kicks two gays out of his cab because of their sexual orientation.

I, as an observer, comment that Muslims shouldn't be surprised to find out that they might not be a very popular ethnic group in America at present. This makes me a bigot how? For stating a fact? Look at polls.

[Behind the Aegis]

188. Pointing it out doesn't make you a bigot. You have confused yourself again.

You do realize not renting to an individual Muslim family because "some Muslim people dancing in the streets on 9/11 and you remember the Muslims that attacked U.S. troops as well as other Muslims in Iraq. You impute these actions to all of Islam" is bigoted, right?!

[SimonPhoenix]

189. Of course it's bigoted

But I didn't make those statements. I was telling a hypothetical story to explain the landlord's actions in Dallas.

[Behind the Aegis]

191. Good you understand it is bigoted and should not be tolerated....

...despite the fact they CHOSE their religion, popular or not.

[SimonPhoenix]

192. I still maintain that people should be allowed to

discriminate against people on the basis of religion if they choose to.

[Behind the Aegis]

193. Then you support bigotry.

[SimonPhoenix]

194. No.

Did Barry Goldwater support bigotry simply by voting against the Civil Rights Act? If you answer yes, then our conversation is pointless and I'm ending it.

If you answer no, that his vote against that legislation, in and of itself, did not constitute support for bigotry, then we can continue. My argument is that freedom of association with regard to religion should extend to public accommodations. I see no need for the protections of the Civil Rights Act to extend to religion as they do currently.

[Behind the Aegis]

196. I apologize, I should have been more clear.

The conversation is done. You support a form of bigotry. I see no need to continue a discussion with someone who supports a various form of bigotry. However, points for being so open about it, that is an usual quality here; most try to hide it.

[Starry Messenger]

178. Yeah all over the strawman map

:eyes:

[ruggerson]

202. Wanda Sykes and many, many gay people of color disagree with you

and I'll take their word over yours as they have first hand experience with being a member of both minorities and you do not.

[Behind the Aegis]

131. Sounds if you don't believe it at all.

If you did believe we are born gay, then there would be no need for CONCLUSIVE proof. Your stating that would be needed before you re-examined the appropriateness of the analogy suggests you don't think sexual orientation is innate. Furthermore, should it matter? The struggle for civil rights will always be different for different groups, but it is still a struggle. So, does it matter if the trait is "in born" or "chosen?"

[SimonPhoenix]

138. YES, it matters if it's chosen.

Are you kidding? If it is conclusively proven that people choose to be gay, then they should not be extended employment discrimination protection, for example. It would be considered a lifestyle choice. Would it be fair to force employers to hire someone who could change who they are in an instant? I do think that most of the victories gay rights groups have won over the years have been because people agree that homosexuality is most likely innate and has a genetic origin. I do believe that sexual orientation is innate.

And if it is chosen then it is definitely not comparable to race.

[Behind the Aegis]

147. Interesting. Do you also not support equal rights for Jews? I happen to be both.

We know "religion" is not innate, 'then they should not be extended employment discrimination protection, for example. It would be considered a lifestyle choice. Would it be fair to force employers to hire someone who could change who they are in an instant?"

[SimonPhoenix]

149. Jews are an ethnic group

I realize that it is also a religion, but they deserve the same civil rights protections extended to any race because of their unique history as an ethnic group. They are not considered to be a religion by many fringe groups, but rather to be a race. Even if a born Jew converts to Christianity, they will still face discrimination from some for having a Jewish surname or looking Jewish or whatever. If you're asking me if I think that it would be okay to fire someone for being a Baptist, for example, I would say yes. The Baptist sect of Protestantism is absolutely a religion with no racial aspects to it whatsoever.

[Behind the Aegis]

154. Jews are many thing, including a religious group, such as my friend who converted.

He CHOSE to be a Jew.

"If you're asking me if I think that it would be okay to fire someone for being a Baptist, I would say yes. "

You basically think some types of bigotry are acceptable. Do you also think it acceptable that a Dallas aptarment complex will not rent to Muslims?

[SimonPhoenix]

167. I wouldn't have a problem with it

Is religion not a choice?

Ironic anecdote coming from you, Aegis. You get up in arms about a Dallas apartment complex not renting to Muslims yet you have no qualms about supporting an apartheid regime that kills hundreds a year. Interesting.

[Behind the Aegis]

171. You obviously don't know me or my positions about I/P.

But, changing the subject away from your addmission of "acceptable forms of bigotry" is very interesting. Supportive of certain types of bigotry and a propagandist, why do I not find that surprising?

[SimonPhoenix]

175. Stop putting words in my MOUTH

I simply said that I don't think civil rights protections should extend to RELIGION because RELIGION, unlike RACE, is a choice. People on here constantly make anti-Christian comments, and I'm sure that some would discriminate against Christians if given the chance. That should be their right. Would I discriminate against someone because of their religion? No. But the line between access to accommodations and freedom of association is a blurred one.

You've told me that I don't have the requisite knowledge to debate you on I/P. You don't have the requisite knowledge to debate me on pharmacy or law.

[Behind the Aegis]

177. I am not "putting words in your mouth," your statements did that, not me.

You stated it again.

"You don't have the requisite knowledge to debate me on pharmacy or law."

Which is irrelevant as it is not the topic of the discussion nor is it something I alluded to in my remarks to you whilst trying to change the subject.

[SimonPhoenix]

181. It actually is a matter of law

Do you understand how fine the line is between civil rights and property rights? Look at the Boy Scouts case and the constitutional issue of freedom of association if you don't understand me on the grave importance of this.

[Starry Messenger]

183. Um what???

:rofl:

[Behind the Aegis]

184. And civil rights overrides property rights in almost all cases.

It is illegal to discriminate against renting to someone on a number of conditions, some are innate, others are not. The Boy Scouts has nothing to do with "property" rights and is a further example of you confusing the situation with strawmen and other locial fallacies.

[SimonPhoenix]

186. I understand that

I am arguing that perhaps religion should not be one of the protected discrimination classes. What are some of the other protected classes? Race, sex, national origin, age, color, handicap... are any of these choices?

[Behind the Aegis]

190. Race, sex, national origin, age, color, handicap... are any of these choices?

No, but sex, age, and disabilities can change and one of your statements indicated why should a group be protected on something it can change. However, Familial status and Veteran status are choices.

[SimonPhoenix]

195. Familial status? Think you mean marital status- should be also removed imo

Veteran status should stay-for public policy reasons. The other non-choices should also obviously stay.

[Behind the Aegis]

197. So, some pigs are more equal than others? Sad.

ETA: When you come back next time, you might want to use the moniker "AF Napoleon." (AF = Animal Farm)

[Starry Messenger]

140. BTA, we've got a live one

:rofl:

[Behind the Aegis]

151. That we do!

Same tired shit, too! You'd think they'd get new talking points. I think I may just c'n'p my responses...saves my hands for other things. :evilgrin:

[Starry Messenger]

lol

Idle hands are the D_vil's plaything. :evilgrin:

[Bluebear]

153. Trollicious!

I wonder whose little sockpuppet it is.

[Starry Messenger]

157. Do you think it could be the empyreanisles troll?

The one who keeps coming back? dolphindance, etc?

[Bluebear]

164. Every time somebody starts this gay vs people of color thing I cringe.

Talk about unproductive and divisive.

[Starry Messenger]

172. I think it's the work of one guy in this case

I think this is a usenet troll that attacked ruggerson awhile back.

[Behind the Aegis]

156. not just the devil's! MWHAHAHAHAHA...where's that porn thread?!

[Bluebear]

141. Here the fuck we go again, the Oppression Olympics. Thanks for your solidarity.

[SimonPhoenix]

143. Thanks for yours or lack thereof in the 60s

My father grew up in Alabama and remembers how a couple of the most racist folks in his town would likely be members of HRC today. So whatever.

[Bluebear]

152. I grew up in Detroit in the 60's and you don't know shit about solidarity.

[SimonPhoenix]

160. Wow big deal

I grew up in DC in the late 80s and early 90s with a non-pale skin color.

[Name removed]

162. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[SimonPhoenix]

163. I lol'ed

nt

[Ozymanithrax]

7. Marriage is between two consenting individuals with a marriage license.

I can not see any evidence that the person is afraid of gays.

This person does abhor the concepts of equal rights and equal access under the law.

[Tailormyst]

8. Yes they are

The same way those opposed to equalty for others groups, including in relation to marriage were also bigots. It's not "different" because its gays and it's certainly not "different" because dems are doing it along side the pukes.

Either you believe in equality or you do not. Either you have the courage to state your true feelings or you are a coward.

Bigots or cowards, one or the other. Both are shameful.

[muffin1]

20. I hope someone from the Obama administration reads your post. n/t

:thumbsup:

[renie408]

10. There is the possiblity that they are just stupid and incapable of independent thought.

But it a lot more likely that they are both homophobic and bigoted towards gays.

[Rebubula]

11. Not sure

You can never be sure of a person's underlying motives\beliefs

However, it dismays me deeply to hear these kind of things come from Barack Obama and most of our administration officials.

[alp227]

13. Not just bigoted, maybe also misinformed

The fact is that "traditional American marriage" hasn't been the way marriage worked throughout human history. Maybe such a person supports a "compromise" like Washington State's Referendum 71 that gave same-sex couples all equal rights of heterosexual married couples but just did not call the union marriage.

[muffin1]

24. No one should have to compromise, either.

I'm not saying this is your thinking, because I can't really discern whether you agree with the position or not.

Every one in this country deserves EQUAL rights, not watered down rights. It sure would be nice to hear this from the President. Who knows? Maybe he could change a few minds in the country, and maybe right here on DU!

[alp227]

60. Well for the record i do support marriage equality.

I admit that I used to subscribe to the "marriage is strictly between a man and a woman" message. Now after doing some soul- and researching, I have yet to hear a really really good, non-religious reason why gay couples shouldn't get married other than "my religion doesn't allow it" or "it's immoral" or "eww" or "marriage is strictly between a man and a woman".

[katnip00]

62. It sounds like you still don't agree with the gay lifestyle even if you support gay marriage.

If you were looking for reasons to not support it and couldn't find any. I guess your position of supporting gay marriage as long as you continue to not find any good reasons not to support it is good enough for now, for some of us.

[superduperfarleft]

63. "Lifestyle?" n/t

[Toasterlad]

67. Please Don't Use the Word Lifestyle When Referring To Gay People

The word is sexual orientation.

[Sal Minella]

101. **muttering to herself** I wonder if people choose the Fundamentalist Christian Lifestyle

or if they're born that way. I conclude the FCL synapses are present at birth.

[Veruca Salt]

73. Religion is a lifestyle choice, sexual orientation is not. I was born gay

not born Christian or Jewish or Muslim etc. Please do not call something that is hardwired into us biologically a 'lifestyle'. That's as stupid as going around asking people why they chose the hetro lifestyle.

[GodlessBiker]

14. Yes. No.

[Mari333]

15. ditto.nt

[Fresh_Start]

22. yes and no

but realize that a person can be open to marriage between same sex couples and still be bigoted toward gays.

For example, its okay if they get married but I don't want them in my neighborhood or school or.....

[soleft]

25. They could be a liar - they may totally think that gay marriage is cool

And lie about their true feelings for various reasons.

Take that congressman in California. He lied to advance his political career. He behaved in a bigoted way. Is he bigoted against himself? No, just a fraud and a coward.

[Lyric]

44. So you think that people who lie about their convictions in order to gain political advantage

are frauds and cowards?

I must agree with you there. :)

[Warpy]

26. Sure, some people are rigid, conventional types

and one of the hardest things you can ever do is get them to change an opinion, especially a stupid opinion.

They're our traditionalists, people who think that since something was so in grandpappy's day, it ought to remain so now.

[Bluenorthwest]

55. Grandpappy's day was also racist, and that was/is tradition

as well. Generational bigotry is still bigotry. Holding a stupid opinion about a group of people in the face of fact is the very definition of prejudice.

[renie408]

29. Been thinking about it. We need to separate 'church', 'marriage' and 'civil unions'...

The semantics are killing us. Let EVERYBODY, straight or gay, have to have a certificate of civil union to establish who their choice of next of kin, partner in property and decider of medical issues in times when they are incapable of such and let those who choose to be 'married' in a church do so in whatever church accepts their commitment. The civil union will be performed by a magistrate and the non-binding religious ceremony can either be performed or not afterward. Religious people can have marriage and the rest of us can have the rights.

I am an atheist and have been 'married' for 25 years. My commitment to my husband and our relationship will not be any less if it is called a civil union and that term is probably a lot more accurate.

[Tailormyst]

30. Semantics are not killing us- Bigotry is

The people against Equality will not stop being against it because they change the name. They will be AGAINST anything they makes THEM equal to those they dislike and feel superior to.

[Pithlet]

50. Agreed. Changing the name won't appease them. It just creates a separate class to boot.

I hate that argument every time I hear it. Just because I'm not religious and didn't get married in a church, I'm not married? Bullshit. And I'm not going to extend that mentality to appease the bigots, either. Screw them. They aren't going to get their way. We're winning the fight as it is, one state at at time.

[Pithlet]

48. I'm married. I'm not calling it anything else, nor am I letting anyone take that away

just because of a bunch of bigots. You want to give in, I guess that's your prerogative. But I'm not, and I"m going to stand with those who are fighting for that right. It's not semantics. It's civil rights.

[Toasterlad]

70. How Come We Didn't Change the Name When Black People Wanted to Marry White People?

That "changed the definition of marriage" too. What's so objectionable about the gays that we need to scrap the entire concept of marriage?

[independent voter]

32. Legally it still is... mostly

The problem is that certain religions (or misguided interpretations of certain religions) have convinced people that our state institution of marriage is really just a religious institution (despite the fact that even among many straight people it is not religious institution at all). These hate mongers are so blinded that they cannot see that they are depriving honest, tax-paying Americans of equal treatment under the law.

It is shameful.

[walldude]

34. Yes. They are.

Can you find another reason for someone to stand against gay marriage? Many thousands of gays are already married. Has it hurt anything? Has someone gotten sick? Died? Got Divorced because gays are married? The institution of marriage is a fucking joke already, how many "family values" candidates have been caught with hookers? Mistresses? With secret gay lifestyles? How many marriages end in divorce?
Can anyone come up with a single fucking VALID reason gays shouldn't be allowed to marry? Fuck no. They can't. Which leaves us homophobia.

[marshall]

35. It depends on the context of the statement

If they say "marriage is between a man and a woman" they could be merely stating the law as it stands in their state. In the same way an anti-abortion advocate might say "abortion is legal in the United States." Both statements refer to facts and not opinions.

However, if the statement was "Marriage SHOULD be between a man and a woman", that is an opinion. In that case you might be better justified in trying to figure out whether they are a homophobe.

In the same vein, saying something like "Women make less salary than men" or "Blacks are less welcome in some organizations than whites" doesn't necessarily make the speaker a sexist or a racist. The key is whether they are stating a fact or whether they are saying that's they way things should be.

[Ratty]

36. There are degrees of homophobia

I think a lot of people just don't really think about it. They dislike change, which is perfectly natural, and tend to find comfort in the way things have always been. I'd label some of them "morally incurious." Aside from the obvious, rabid homophobe I'd say the true test comes when it hits home for them. When they discover someone they care about is affected. When they're forced to think about it and come to a decision.

[muffin1]

37. I don't see where this subject requires a lot of thought.

Should GLBT folks have the same rights as everyone else? Yes, without hesitation. Who needs to think about whether or not equality is 'right'?

[Nye Bevan]

39. Anyone who answers "yes" is accusing President Obama of being a homophobe

and a bigot. And I don't think he is. I think he just lacks the political courage to tell everyone his real opinion. And this is to me one of the most disappointing aspects of his administration.

[mitchtv]

40. Yes and No

and Yes, Obama has said, and done some homophobic things and some not so phobic things, At best he is a liar.

[Lyric]

45. "Political courage?" Why not just say "courage?"

What's the difference, in the end?

:shrug:

[GodlessBiker]

46. He is. But wait, you are not calling him a bigot but you are calling him a liar?

[Nye Bevan]

47. To put it bluntly, yes. I am calling him a liar.

I think that he believes in his heart that gays should be allowed full marriage rights. But again, to put it bluntly, he is afraid of losing the votes of homophobic bigots on this issue, so he pretends to believe that marriage is only between a man and a woman. Of course, all politicians lie sometimes, but this is a particularly disappointing one.

[Ratty]

54. I used to think that

Of course he believes in gay marriage, I would say to myself. But nowdays I do not believe he is on our side. First he used his faith as an excuse for his bigotry. Then came Donnie McClurkin - seriously? Next up: Rick Warren. Now he's waffling on DADT. I think he's just a bigot, plain and simple.

[Bluenorthwest]

56. Well then he is even worse because he lies using real people

and his alleged 'faith' as fodder to sell that lie. He says he is against equal rights because of his religion. I have family members of the same religion who are offended at being so described, but that is what he says. So you claim he is a craven liar?

[Nye Bevan]

58. Yes. By definition, he is either a bigot or a liar.

And I prefer to assume that he is a liar.

[Toasterlad]

68. President Obama IS a Homophobe

Regardless of the basis, he is clearly terrified of homosexuals.

[Bluebear]

72. Well, now, we can only take him at his word, yes? And Donnie McClurkin sealed the deal.

[Lyric]

43. Yes homophobe. No, there are no excuses.

Religion is a choice--not an excuse.

[Zoeisright]

49. Yes. Also uninformed, judgmental, and bigoted.

[Johonny]

51. if they meant the man and the women would get along better

if only there wasn't that marriage thing between them

That stupid marriage always getting between a man and a women.

[superduperfarleft]

53. Yes. No. You can also call them "President" if you prefer. n/t

[karynnj]

57. No, it could have been political - as in many areas, you would lose otherwise,

or it could be because marriage is both a religious and civil word.

I would look at all the positions taken by the person and the time period when they were said.

[Toasterlad]

69. Doing the Wrong Thing Because It's Politically Expedient Is Bigotry

Letting innocent people suffer because you don't have the courage to end their suffering is bigotry. Selling out a group of people because they are not important enough to you do the right thing is bigotry.

As for your second point...really? Are you really suggesting that it's okay to discriminate against gay people for religious reasons? Because if that's what you're saying, then you're a bigot.

[karynnj]

79. You asked for possible reasons - I gave them

They are not mine.

As to politicians, would you prefer Republicans winning even in areas where we otherwise have a chance? They can better right for you if they are elected.

[Toasterlad]

84. Actually, the OP Asked For the Reasons. And While I Wouldn't Presume To Speak For Him/Her....

...I thought it was understood that what was asked for were LEGITIMATE reasons, not half-assed bullshit that bigots use to justify their bigotry. The "reasons" you provided are not reasons; they're excuses.

And please don't preach Democratic love for gay people to me. I haven't seen much "fighting" (which I assume is what you meant to say) from any Democrat since they took power, least of all from Obama. As a gay person, it makes not one bit of difference to me which party gets elected, except that the Republicans have the decency to tell me to my face that they'll do nothing for me.

[karynnj]

91. I understand your feelings

But, there have been some accomplishments, though they aren't on the big issues. Some like, allowing people with HIV to enter the country affect more heterosexual people than gays. On what I think are the two biggest federal issues - DADT and DOMA, Obama is publicly in favor of repealing DADT and military leaders in his administration have spoken in favor of it. In the Congress, there are somewhere around 22 Senators that have co-sponsored the legislation in the few weeks since it was introduced. I would not bet against this happening - even though, as we know, it will need 60 votes in the Senate.

As to DOMA, there are to routes to repeal it. One is if the Supreme Court, now more conservative than in the 1990s, would find it unconstitutional. MA has filed a case that is considered the strongest challenge, but I have read nothing that gives it much chance of success. The other is to repeal it. Here, unless they knows they has 60 votes in the Senate and half in the hour - or it is at least close, it is unlikely that the Congress will want to cast what for many would be tough votes.

I do realize that unlike many I answered with regards to politicians. Here, I disagree with you that staying quiet or repeating that marriage is a man and a woman - if they are asked their opinion, is a way to keep their campaign viable. It is important that we keep the majority because our ability to change anything depends on that.

[theHandpuppet]

59. Yes to question one. No to question two.

Yes, it really is that simple.

[Bluenorthwest]

61. When they use religion as an excuse they are even worse

Let's take the Obamas. They claim it is 'the Bible' that teaches them to be bigots. But both of them utterly reject huge swatches of that book in their own lives. When they look to these anti gay verses, neither of them have bothered to discuss their feelings about other verses by the same Biblical authors that support slavery, or that say women such as Michelle should remain silent in public. What kind of people edit out the parts they don't believe, and then take up what is left as a weapon against others? I mean, it is high time to just say it. They reject the 'slaves obey your masters' teachings of Paul, and yet they embrace his anti gay teachings? On what intellectual basis do they do that? According to Paul, Michelle should not speak, keep her head covered, should not draw any attention to herself or her beauty, she is forbidden finery and costly apparel. So she does not follow any of that, nor should she. But as she does not, how can she then turn and say that other verses by this same man must be followed by others? What is the rationale for that?
There are many follow up questions to be asked when some politician uses religion as a political device. But they are not asked.

[Toasterlad]

65. Yes To Your First Question, No To Your Second

Anyone who says - even ONCE! - that marriage is only between a man and a woman is a bigoted jackass. There is NO non-bigoted reason to believe that.

[warm regards]

75. I don't know. Is Barack Obama a bigoted homophobe?

[muffin1]

77. Despite loving DU, I will take the bait and say yes.

Anyone, including Obama, who says same-sex marriage is wrong, is a bigoted homophobe.

[warm regards]

87. Okay, so there is no tolerance whatsoever on your part for differing views.

Personally, I have no problem with it, but I am mindful of the fact that 66% of the country disagrees with me.

And I don't believe that they are all homophobic.

[Nye Bevan]

89. OK. So not everyone who believes that blacks should not be allowed to marry whites is a racist?

Right?

[warm regards]

110. Apples and oranges...

And as I am sure you are aware, black people take offense to that analogy.

[Nye Bevan]

111. So you are just like cbdo2007 in post 17 above,

who claimed that race and sexual orientation were not comparable in this context.

And I am sure you would be just as unable as cbdo2007 was to justify this statement.

[TokenQueer]

114. Only black people that are homophobic bigots take offense to that analogy.

Thanks for playing.

[Name removed]

122. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Starry Messenger]

124. Oh you are so oppressed by Big Gay

:cry: :cry: :cry:

[SimonPhoenix]

127. Fine, wanna play dirty

How does it feel being without your rights while I enjoy mine? Attitude matters just as much as facts. Your aggressiveness turns people off.

[Starry Messenger]

129. I'm straight.

All fair winds on my side of that table. :shrug: Your freeper ass will be gone by tomorrow, might as well just get it all out of your system, honey.

[SimonPhoenix]

134. Yep

So because I believe that comparing the struggle to the civil rights movement is offensive and inappropriate, I'm a homophobe.

Got it.

You're a 1percenter.

[Starry Messenger]

137. Hmmm, so all of the black gay people who lived under Jim Crow...

that was just easy street, amirite? You are too transparent. :rofl:

[SimonPhoenix]

142. You're white

And we'd laugh at you if you came into our communities and spouted these platitudes. "Crazy white cracker" would be the most likely term applied.

[Starry Messenger]

145. Yeah, I guess Julian Bond is a crazy white cracker!

:rofl:

The head of the NAACP is probably a race traitor too.

[SimonPhoenix]

146. Julian Bond isn't a race traitor

And neither is Barack Obama for opposing same sex marriage. You realize that by calling him a homophobic bigot that you're not progressive.

[Starry Messenger]

150. Bwah ha ha

Oh god, i can't breathe. :rofl:

Barack Obama is relegating himself to a fine print footnote in the gblt civil rights struggle. Too bad he didn't have the stones to make a stand. Unlike Julian Bond.

[SimonPhoenix]

158. What's interesting

you think the gay rights struggle will ever occupy more than 10% of the space in a history book that the black civil rights struggle does.

It's just not on the same level. When did gay people get kicked out of restaurants for being gay? When were the few gay players in major league sports not allowed to stay in the same hotels as the rest of their teammates? Have gays ever been attacked by police with firehoses?

You see, Starry Messenger, the animosity against gays comes from private sources. The animosity against blacks came through the GOVERNMENT, acting as a battering ram to serve the wishes of the (white) people. That's what makes the civil rights struggle different from the gay struggle.

[Starry Messenger]

170. Oh yeah, it's you alright...

:rofl:


When did gay people get kicked out of those places in American history? When they are gay and black. If you read around the internet, gay black people don't appreciate being written out of the civil rights movement because they weren't straight. There were gay slaves. Who were black.


The animosity towards gays also comes from the government. What is this "private sources" BS? White, black, other color gays are completely written out of the constitution. You are wrong, this in an important chapter in the civil rights movement. Sorry you want to write yourself out of it.

[Withywindle]

199. GLBT people represent about 10% of the American population. Black people about 13%

Not that far apart, is it? And there's even less of a discrepancy when you realize (if you have the empathy to grasp it) that a lot of Black people are GLBT and a lot of GLBT people are black.

Me, I don't believe civil rights have anything to do with census numbers or oppression olympics. I just think the Black civil rights movement, the women's movement, the labor movement, and the GLBT movement are all based on the same crucial principle: it is fundamentally WRONG to legally establish one group, ANY group, as "lesser" in the eyes of the law. And if human dignity and equality are important issues for anyone, then the struggle is worthwhile for ALL of us.

[Behind the Aegis]

159. You're confused...by HIS not supporting equal marriage rights, HE is not progressive.

ETA: The "he' and "his" refers to Obama (SM is a woman, wouldn't want you to get confused.)

[SimonPhoenix]

161. Is he progressive for opposing Israel's colonization of Palestine?

Gotcha.

[Behind the Aegis]

168. Changing the subject? Not even a red herring.

And, I doubt you have the knowledge needed to engage me in I/P discussions. Wanna get back to the topic...you know, the one about certain forms of bigotry being acceptable to you?

[Starbucks Anarchist]

133. If you have to rethink your support, you never supported it in the first place.

[TokenQueer]

90. Tolerance for "differing views?"

Wrong. She has no tolerance for intolerance.

Thanks for enabling bigots everywhere.

:middlefinger:

[warm regards]

109. Easy dude, I'm not enabling anyone.

But your attitude will not win many folks over to your side.

:hi:

[TokenQueer]

113. Equality is an issue where I need to win people over?

Really? On DU? I think you are on the wrong discussion board...

[muffin1]

116. Fucking fabulous response!

:applause:

[Starry Messenger]

125. Don't worry my dear TQ.

Soon we will all be grave dancing again. I'm polishing my dancing shoes for several DB's in anticipation. :D

[Toasterlad]

92. You're Some Piece Of Work

Bigotry is just a "different view"?

Why don't we pass laws saying YOU can't get married or serve openly in the military or adopt children? Let's see how tolerant of different views you are then.

Jackass.

[warm regards]

108. You may find it hard to believe, but yes,

some people do disagree with you (66%).

[Nye Bevan]

115. I'm sure that at one time at least 66% believed that interracial marriage should be prohibited.

That 66% was not right then, and the 66% that you keep citing is not right today.

[warm regards]

201. It's not right. But you find that change will be slower if you insist on calling everyone

who disagrees with you a bigot.

[muffin1]

93. You're right.

I have no tolerance for intolerance. Why should I, or anyone else give a damn about bigots who would deny rights to any segment of the population?

What about racists and misogynists? Do they have views that deserve tolerance, as well?

[warm regards]

107. Yes, I agree, you are intolerant,

but I do not agree that Obama is a homophobe.

[muffin1]

112. I notice

you didn't answer my questions regarding racists and misogynists. Do you feel they sometimes have legitimate views? Are you tolerant of them?

And frankly, I don't give a shit what you think of me. I KNOW I am on the right side of the issue. There is no way you will ever convince me that equality is wrong. Anyone who believes gay people don't deserve the same rights as everyone else is a bigot. If you have a better explanation, I would just love to hear it.

[warm regards]

200. It depends on how you define racism, misogyny or misandry.

The manner in which those words have been used (except misandry) has diluted their meanings.

In my mind, to act in a racist, etc. manner, is illogical; so no, they are not legitimate views. But bear in mind, prior to 1975, the American Psychological Association considered homosexuality to be a mental illness. Many older people grew up in that environment and I am willing to cut them some slack. Furthermore, many do not believe that anyone is being deprived of their rights, because the laws that are in effect do not single gays out. They apply equally to everyone.

Clearly, you are unwilling to accept the fact that there are some good people who have different views than you do. But there are, and Barack Obama is one of them.

[muffin1]

207. Acting in a homophobic manner is NOT illogical?

How in the hell does a person figure that the rights of gay citizens are not being infringed?
The cannot marry, adopt children, join the military (without LYING), or even help out at their local Boy Scout organization. Are heterosexual people allowed to engage in these activities? ARE YOU?

Laws apply equally to everyone? Are you insane? Just weeks ago in Virginia, Governor Bob "Asshole" McDonnell renewed a law put into effect by Tim Kaine, stating that people cannot be discriminated against in the workplace based on race, religion, sex, etc. Tim Kaine extended the law to include veterans and sexual orientation. McDonnell renewed it, and removed sexual orientation from the law. So, discriminate away, Virginians! There is a homophobe in the Governor's mansion now. Good times.

And no, there are no 'good people' opposing EQUAL RIGHTS (notice the word 'EQUAL') - look up the word if you are unfamiliar with it. There you will find a definition that makes it impossible to disagree. Unless you are a homophobe - and I'm sure most people here will agree that you have outed yourself as one.

And fuck 'older' as an excuse. There is no excuse for believing discrimination is right, unless you are a fucking moron with no cognitive skills. You cite racism as being inexcusable. How is it different to discriminate based on sexual orientation?

By the way, I hold my own father to the same standard. He is a homophobe, and I don't let him get away with it, either. There is way too much information out there to say otherwise.

Barack Obama is too intelligent - President of Harvard Law Review! - and is way too familiar with discrimination - to not know that his position is wrong. He is either a coward or an idiot. I think we both know he is not stupid.

Draw your own conclusions.

[warm regards]

208. So now Obama is either an idiot or a coward...

but not a homophobe?

The point you are missing is that some people do not realize that their position is outdated as well as wrong. They simply have not had the life experiences that provide others this understanding. I do not know your father, so I cannot comment on his decency or lack thereof. However, my father feels the same way and I can state without equivocation, that he was one of the most decent men I have ever known.

It is clear that you are an absolutist with respect to this issue, and like many other single issue people, you cannot see the forest, for the trees.

Times are changing and more and more people are arriving at the correct conclusion. But you are still going to have to wait a while before everyone agrees with you.

[marshall]

94. That's not the statement the original post posits

It's like a game of gossip, changing in the transmission.

Somebody saying "Marriage is between a man and a woman" is giving a statement of fact about the law. Someone who is against the death penalty can make a statement about its existence and application without abrogating their own opinion.

The statement makes no reference to same-sex marriage being wrong.

[muffin1]

96. Why would a person go around randomly saying

SEVERAL times "marriage is between and man and a woman" just to CITE THE CURRENT LAW of the land? Is the person mentally ill? The same goes for anyone running around saying, "The death penalty exists" several times for no apparent reason.
Clearly, the OP knows of someone who believes this, and wants to know if the person should be considered a homophobe.

If I was ASKED if marriage is between a man and a woman, I would probably say something like, "It is in this fucked up country, but it shouldn't be. Anyone who loves another person, and wants to get married, should be able to". But why would anyone ask, unless the person was from another country, and was just curious? American citizens already know the answer.


If I am asked about the existence of the death penalty, of course I would say it EXISTS, but I would also mention that I am firmly against it.

[marshall]

104. That's an entirely different scenario

I agree with you in the scenario that you have constructed. But it's totally different from the one posed initially in this thread, and which prompted the ongoing discussion.

"If a person has stated on several occasions that marriage is between a man and a woman, is that person a homophobe? Is there a set of circumstances under which that person would not be considered bigoted toward gays?"

There isn't enough context to extrapolate that the person is going around "randomly saying" this. It's said on a number of occasions--occasions that may have involved a discussion of the law, or American culture, or history.

My point is one has to read a lot more in the statement than is given to extrapolate anything about how this person "feels" or what this person believes about the rightness or wrongness of same-sex marriage or even marriage in general.

[muffin1]

105. I guess I just don't understand why anyone would bother

starting this type of thread on DU if someone he/she knows was merely referring to current laws.

[marshall]

120. I suspect that's the point

That often times folks jump to conclusions and read their own suppositions and preconceptions into statements in such a way that could completely transform the meaning.

It's a universal lesson.

[LeftyMom]

82. Does the Pope wear a funny hat?

[warm regards]

88. Actually, I believe it is a “traditional” hat.

[fascisthunter]

204. yeah, it's a funny traditional hat

[muffin1]

76. You've received a multitude of answers...

what do YOU think?

[applegrove]

80. Yes and no.

[FreeState]

81. Yes and no n/t

[anonymous171]

83. Sounds more heterosexist to me. nt

[ismnotwasm]

86. No to the second question

Even indoctrinated bigotry is still bigotry. The first question, the clue for me is 'several occasions" part, sounds like a homophobe to me. Why yammer on about it if it's an opinion that one knows can cause pain and division? Usually personal 'issues' driven opinions are based and hate and fear, not logic or love.

[robcon]

95. That was the position of Both Obama and Biden in the 2008 election.

And neither one of them are homophobes.

[VMI Dem]

97. Could you explain why you feel that they would not be homophobic, given this belief?

Thanks.

[muffin1]

98. Why do you not consider them homophobes? n/t

[Toasterlad]

99. CAUSE HEZ TEH PREZIDANT AND HEZ GOOD!!!!1!!!!

[muffin1]

100. Silly me, I keep forgetting.

Also, HE'S SUPER, SUPER HAWT!!!!11!!

[muffin1]

102. Don't you just love it when people throw out these statements,

and then won't back them up when challenged?

The answer won't be worth the wait anyway, I sure. There really is no fucking excuse that we are still fighting for EQUAL rights in goddamn 2010. To have to fight it on DEMOCRATIC Underground makes it even more disgusting.

[Orsino]

103. Maybe. Either a homophobe, or a panderer to homophobes. n/t

[Behind the Aegis]

106. Possibly a homophobe, but definitely a heterosexist.

The person may not be a homophobe but in this area holds a bigoted opinion.

[Donald Ian Rankin]

117. "Is" or "should be"?

That, at present, in the US, marriage is only between a man and a woman is a matter of simple fact (I think - did Massachusets or somewhere allow gay marriage? If so, it's a matter of simple fact the other way, but either way, it's not a value judgement, just a point of information).

I find it hard to construct a set of opinions that would lead someone to believe that straight couples should be allowed to get married but that gay couples should not be that I would not categorise as homophobic, though - the nearest I can get would be someone who thought that homosexuality was against "positive divine law" but not against "natural moral law" (assuming I've gotten the terms right), but in practice I doubt any such people exist.

[Zhade]

118. It's bigotry. Period. Anyone here expressing such would be and has been banned, and rightly so.

NT!

[ibegurpard]

123. oh, who knows

I'll just accuse them of spouting off tired cliches and say that I disagree.

[Withywindle]

132. Yes, and no.

Marriage is a legal contract between two consenting adults who love each other and agree to live together for life, share expenses, look out for each other, raise children together (if there are any - it's not a requirement), regard each other as best friend and lover, make health decisions for each other if necessary, inherit from each other if necessary.

There is no good reason whatsoever to exclude two men or two women from this LEGAL, CIVIL arrangement that isn't rooted in bigotry and/or superstition. The idea that male/male or female/female relationships are in ANY way inherently inferior or less worthy than male/female ones is both bigotry and ignorant superstition, and I see no good reason to make excuses for it.

[Withywindle]

136. Let's turn this question around.

If there is someone who has stated on several occasions that male/male and female/female relationships are *inherently* inferior, less important, and less valuable than male/female ones and therefore do not deserve the same civil rights with regards to medical care, childrearing, inheritance, and tax filing in the eyes of the law,


is that person a homophobe? Is there a set of circumstances under which that person would not be considered bigoted toward gays?

Because that IS what people who say that "marriage is between a man and a woman" are saying. They ARE saying that m/m and f/f relationships are *inherently lesser* than m/f relationships. How the hell is that NOT homophobic and bigoted?

And yes, I do think Obama is a homophobe and a bigot for expressing this sentiment repeatedly. He has a lot of good qualities, but this is one of his very worst.

[Warren DeMontague]

144. I think, under most circumstances, anyone feeling compelled to announce that

"marriage is between a man and a woman"

...is, at the very least, an asshole.

Now, if the context of the quote is to play "gotcha" because Obama and Biden have said it; it's unfortunate that

a) political reality circa 2008 (which should not be confused with future political reality circa 2016 or 2028, which I suspect will be rather different in this regard) apparently requires our candidate to make such asinine statements to placate people who are, yes, homophobes. Anyone who votes based on their desire to deny equal rights to GLBT citizens is a fucking homophobe. And an asshole. Sorry.

b) our party, our leadership, and our President hasn't yet taken the morally correct (if, for the time being, politically untenable) stance of across the board support for marriage equality.

[Iggo]

148. What you're asking is if the Pres is a homophobe, right? (n/t)

[Incitatus]

180. If it is his honest opinion that gays should not be allowed to marry, then he is.

However, in politics sometimes you have to say things you might not agree with if you want to be elected.


His true opinion, only he knows.

[Withywindle]

198. Agreed. I would really think he SHOULD know better.

At the time that he was born, HIS OWN PARENTS' MARRIAGE wouldn't have been recognized in many states.

If he really truly thought this through, he should instinctively know how wrong it is. I don't even buy his "religious" excuse, because he was UCC for many years, and UCC is open and affirming of GLBT people (as a matter of their frakkin' mission statement!)

If he'd stood up and said that he thought marriage equality was only right and fair...well, he still would've won the damn election, IMO. People voted for him because they want jobs and health care and an end to the wars and, most of all, something very different from whatever it was the Shrub was doing. That was a massive groundswell vote. Shrub claimed a mandate to do whatever the fuck he wanted, and he NEVER got a margin like Obama did.

[fascisthunter]

205. yes, that's a homophobe

[27inCali]

206. if they are hung up on that, it's because they have a problem with gayness

there's no other logical way around it. I would say in my heart of hearts that's a bigoted thing, but I think, throwing that word out there probably makes people less likely to open up and come over to the light.