If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(The Week)   When it comes to the gay marriage debate, the real bigots are the bigots who call bigots bigots. Bigots   (theweek.com) divider line 315
    More: Unlikely, Conor Friedersdorf, Ross Douthat, democratic government, fashion trends  
•       •       •

1360 clicks; posted to Politics » on 07 Mar 2014 at 1:40 PM (41 weeks ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



315 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | » | Last | Show all
 
2014-03-07 02:20:30 PM  

Pincy: I'm assuming you are trying to make some kind of point but I'm not sure you made the point you intended to. Being a bigot is a choice. Being gay isn't.


Ahem:

Debeo Summa Credo: You might start hanging out with the person, talking about sports or electronics or cars, bringing him to group events to meet your other buddies, inviting him to poker night, having sex a few times, going ballgames together and whatnot, THEN finding out he's a homo

 
2014-03-07 02:21:56 PM  

ManateeGag: No, I was just going to ask, why not hire guy who isn't an asshole?


That's not mutually exclusive with suing the shiat out of the bigot. You hire someone decent while you have your lawyer make the bigot hurt.
 
2014-03-07 02:22:18 PM  

Debeo Summa Credo: You might start hanging out with the person, talking about sports or electronics or cars, bringing him to group events to meet your other buddies, inviting him to poker night, having sex a few times, going ballgames together and whatnot, THEN finding out he's a homo. I know they didn't choose to be gay but not disclosing it upfront is horribly rude IMO.


gifatron.com
 
2014-03-07 02:25:04 PM  

Debeo Summa Credo: You might start hanging out with the person, talking about sports or electronics or cars, bringing him to group events to meet your other buddies, inviting him to poker night, having sex a few times, going ballgames together and whatnot, THEN finding out he's a homo. I know they didn't choose to be gay but not disclosing it upfront is horribly rude IMO.


I laughed.  :)
 
2014-03-07 02:25:35 PM  

amiable: SkinnyHead:

Religious people have rights too.  Why should a religious person have to chose between his religion and his profession?  To insist that a religious person violate his religion or give up his profession, when there are reasonable alternatives available, would be intolerant.  There's a word for that kind of intolerance.

No there's not.  There are plenty of thing religious people believe that they cannot do because it is illegal, such as marry a dozen wives or stone adulterers.  Why is it like this amiable?  Well I'm glad you asked.

There was a Supreme Court decision called Employment Division vs Smith where a Native American sued because he was fired for using Peyote. He argued that laws against his consumption of Peyote violated his religious freedom.  He lost.

Why? Because this crazy ultra liberal Justice named Antonin Scalia pointed out religious people have to follow laws, even if it violates their religious belief, unless that law was specifically intended to oppress them. To do anything else would be anarchy.  Gay marriage laws/civil rights decisions were not passed to punish Christians, they were passed to ensure the rights of that minority were protected.  Arguing that because you have a particular religious belief you should be able to violate the law goes against CONSERVATIVE principles.


As a result of that Smith decision, Congress enacted the Religious Freedom Restoration Act, and many states followed suit by enacting state versions of that act.  Arizona is one of those states.  Arizona recognizes a religious defense for Native Americans who are prosecuted for using peyote as part of their religious ceremonies.  Toleration and accommodation of the sincerely held religious beliefs of others, when feasible, is certainly a more enlightened approach.
 
2014-03-07 02:27:18 PM  

Gecko Gingrich: Here's the rub, one group believes "A" and wants the force of law to make everyone else follow their beliefs. The other group doesn't believe "A" and wants the force of law to let everyone believe whatever they want.


/"A" can be about abortion, gay marriage, hate speech, etc
//Shove your slippery slope arguments of, "What if 'A' were murder, or rape, etc?"


Depends how you phrase it.  Is A "that marriage is only between a man and a woman" or "that gay people should be treated equally"?
 
2014-03-07 02:28:19 PM  
Hey mark12a!  Here's your TRADITIONAL MARRIAGE!  Enjoy it!  I hope your wife and kids enjoy being property.

Upon marriage, a woman's property and her body became the possession of her new husband. As the head of the household, men (usually between the ages of 18 and 24) had nearly unlimited rights over wives and children.

A woman became available for men's possession soon after she reached puberty (usually 11 to 13 years old), that is, when she became physically able to produce children. Today we call such sexual arrangements statutory rape. The biblical model for sexual relationships includes adult males taking girls into their bedchambers, as King David did in 1 Kings 1:1-3.

Throughout the Hebrew text it is taken for granted that women (as well as children) are the possessions of men. The focus of the text does not seriously consider or concentrate upon the women's status, but their identity is formed by their sexual relationship to the man: virgin daughter, betrothed bride, married woman, mother, barren wife or widow.

Her dignity and worth as one created in the image of God is subordinated to the needs and desires of men. As chattel, women are often equated with a house or livestock (Dt. 20:5-7), as demonstrated in the last commandment, "Thou shalt not covet thy neighbor's house, wife, slave, ox or donkey" (Ex. 20:17).

Because women are excluded from being the subject of this command, the woman -- like a house, slave, ox or donkey -- is reduced to an object: just another possession, another piece of property that belonged to the man, and thus should not be coveted by another man.

Because the biblical understanding of the purpose for marriage has been reproduction, marriage could be dissolved by the man if his wife failed to bear his heirs.

Besides reproduction, marriage within a patriarchal order also served political and economic means. Marriages during antiquity mainly focused on codifying economic responsibilities and obligations.
Little attention was paid to how the couple felt about each other. Wives were chosen from good families not only to secure the legitimacy of a man's children, but to strengthen political and economic alliances between families, clans, tribes and kingdoms. To ensure that any offspring were the legitimate heirs, the woman was restricted to just one sex partner, her husband.

Biblical marriages were endogamous -- that is, they occurred within the same extended family or clan -- unlike the modern Western concept of exogamous, where unions occur between outsiders.

Men could have as many sexual partners as they could afford. The great patriarchs of the faith, Abraham, Isaac, Jacob and Judah, had multiple wives and/or concubines, and delighted themselves with the occasional prostitute (Gen. 38:15). King Solomon alone was recorded to have had over 700 wives of royal birth and 300 concubines (1 Kings 11:3).

The book of Leviticus, in giving instructions to men wishing to own a harem, provides only one prohibition, which is not to "own" sisters (Lev. 18:18). The Hebrew Bible is clear that men could have multiple sex partners. Wives ensured legitimate heirs; all other sex partners existed for the pleasures of the flesh.

A woman, on the other hand, was limited to just one sex partner who ruled over her -- unless, of course, she was a prostitute.

Biblical marriage was considered valid only if the bride was a virgin. If she was not, then she needed to be executed (Dt. 22:13-21).

Marriages could only take place if the spouses were believers (Ezra 9:12). And if the husband were to die before having children, then his brother was required to marry the widow. If he refused, he had to forfeit one of his sandals, be spit on by the widow, and change his name to "House of the Unshoed" (Dt. 25:5-10).
 
2014-03-07 02:30:52 PM  

Satan's Bunny Slippers: Hey mark12a!  Here's your TRADITIONAL MARRIAGE!  Enjoy it!  I hope your wife and kids enjoy being property.

Upon marriage, a woman's property and her body became the possession of her new husband. As the head of the household, men (usually between the ages of 18 and 24) had nearly unlimited rights over wives and children.

A woman became available for men's possession soon after she reached puberty (usually 11 to 13 years old), that is, when she became physically able to produce children. Today we call such sexual arrangements statutory rape. The biblical model for sexual relationships includes adult males taking girls into their bedchambers, as King David did in 1 Kings 1:1-3.

Throughout the Hebrew text it is taken for granted that women (as well as children) are the possessions of men. The focus of the text does not seriously consider or concentrate upon the women's status, but their identity is formed by their sexual relationship to the man: virgin daughter, betrothed bride, married woman, mother, barren wife or widow.

Her dignity and worth as one created in the image of God is subordinated to the needs and desires of men. As chattel, women are often equated with a house or livestock (Dt. 20:5-7), as demonstrated in the last commandment, "Thou shalt not covet thy neighbor's house, wife, slave, ox or donkey" (Ex. 20:17).

Because women are excluded from being the subject of this command, the woman -- like a house, slave, ox or donkey -- is reduced to an object: just another possession, another piece of property that belonged to the man, and thus should not be coveted by another man.

Because the biblical understanding of the purpose for marriage has been reproduction, marriage could be dissolved by the man if his wife failed to bear his heirs.

Besides reproduction, marriage within a patriarchal order also served political and economic means. Marriages during antiquity mainly focused on codifying economic responsibilities and obligations.
Little attention was p ...


hold on, let me write this down.  wanna take bets on how fast my wife kicks my ass when I try to present this argument to her?
 
2014-03-07 02:31:14 PM  
When it comes to ..  img.fark.net


lelz
 
2014-03-07 02:32:09 PM  

SkinnyHead: The original meaning of the term "bigot" referred to people who were intolerant of the religious beliefs of others.


My religion says that gays can marry, bigots are trying to take my religious freedom.
 
2014-03-07 02:32:51 PM  

timujin: mark12A: I just wish for a day when "religious conservatives PC Warriors" would just go about their business AND QUIT TELLING EVERYONE ELSE HOW TO LIVE.

See how that works?

Stop demanding that I accept Gay Marriage. I don't, and I'm not a bigot. I want gays to be left in peace and live their lives without harassment. My opposition has more to do with maintaining the traditional functionality of marriage (producing and rearing quality replacement citizens) and not the specter of bearded men in wedding dresses...(ewww!)

How do you define the traditional functionality of marriage?


Me and two chicks at the same time... oh yeah.
 
2014-03-07 02:33:24 PM  

SkinnyHead: Marcus Aurelius: SkinnyHead: The original meaning of the term "bigot" referred to people who were intolerant of the religious beliefs of others.

It's a good thing that no one is being forced to get gay married then.

Should wedding photographers be forced to photograph gay weddings, despite religious objections?


Let's take a different tack. A war photographer is assigned to take pictures of war atrocities.  If he is forced to take pictures of war atrocities, does that mean the photographer affirms war atrocities?

I feel like wedding cake bakers and wedding singers and photographers are taking a little too much stock in the importance of the scope of their participation in a gay wedding.  I can see a pastor refusing to marry (note the use of marry as a verb) two gay people on religious grounds.  For any other paid participants, I don't see the validity of refusing on "religious grounds", even if you're not part of a religion that tells you to love your enemy, turn the other cheek when you are slapped, give a robber your cloak when he demands your shirt, etc.

Now, if the gay couple are themselves Christian, than they should not ask homophobic people to perform services at their wedding, vis a vis First Corinthians chapter 8.  But that also has nothing to do with secular law.
 
2014-03-07 02:33:42 PM  

Karac: Ladies and gentlemen!  I present to you ...

[images.nationalgeographic.com image 470x300]

The greatest bigot of the 1950's and 60's!


he's bigoted racist because he is afraid of teh ghey
 
2014-03-07 02:41:31 PM  
ManateeGag: hold on, let me write this down.  wanna take bets on how fast my wife kicks my ass when I try to present this argument to her?

I did find the " If he refused, he had to forfeit one of his sandals, be spit on by the widow, and change his name to "House of the Unshoed" kinda funny to consider.  In a really not very funny way.
 
2014-03-07 02:41:58 PM  
I'm bigoted against the cultures that have the child brides, too. You better be bigoted about something.
 
2014-03-07 02:44:34 PM  

palelizard: timujin: mark12A: I just wish for a day when "religious conservatives PC Warriors" would just go about their business AND QUIT TELLING EVERYONE ELSE HOW TO LIVE.

See how that works?

Stop demanding that I accept Gay Marriage. I don't, and I'm not a bigot. I want gays to be left in peace and live their lives without harassment. My opposition has more to do with maintaining the traditional functionality of marriage (producing and rearing quality replacement citizens) and not the specter of bearded men in wedding dresses...(ewww!)

How do you define the traditional functionality of marriage?

Me and two chicks at the same time... oh yeah.


I guess it was too much to expect he'd actually answer.  And, yes, I'm aware he put a blip of a description in his initial comment, but I was looking for something more than a line that has been thoroughly destroyed as a line of reasoning many times over.

/hrm... wondering if "initial comment" gets filterpwned
 
2014-03-07 02:44:53 PM  

ManateeGag: hold on, let me write this down. wanna take bets on how fast my wife kicks my ass when I try to present this argument to her?


$5 bucks says you make it to the second use of the word 'possession', but only because when you got to the first use of the word 'body', she thought you were telling a joke.
 
2014-03-07 02:50:05 PM  

Barfmaker: I see it as solely a gender discrimination issue. A man and a woman are legally entitled to share spousal benefits, a man and a man are not (or a woman and a woman).

So either it's okay to discriminate based on gender under the law, or it is not.


I like the cut of your jib. Hadn't thought of it that way before, but that actually makes some sense.

Either way, institutionalized discrimination is unbecoming to a constitutional republic and the people quacking about same-gender marriage are starting to get very embarrassing.
 
2014-03-07 02:50:22 PM  

Theaetetus: OregonVet: Even twenty years ago Wal*Mart was giving benefits to same sex couples *gasp*. Target followed shortly after that year. I get the 'point' - that everyone needs to understand everyone needs equal protection. But when you have an overwhelming number of voters, in the Kerry POTUS election for example, vote Democrat and against Gay Marriage on the same ballot where I lived at the time, there is a disconnect that isn't limited to rednecks. In fact the support of gay rights was around the same number in the red and blue areas that year. Considerable improvement has been made since, but if you are just going to bash one group because of one issue while disregarding the other extensive issues on the ballot, than yah, I could see calling it a form of bigotry.

In what way is bashing bigots "a form of bigotry"? Furthermore, in what way is complaining about people bashing bigots "while disregarding the other extensive issues" anything but concern trolling? "Gosh, we can't say anything bad about those homophobic assholes, because, uh, national debt! Jobs! Afghanistan!"


Condemnation of a religious belief is bigotry.

Condemnation of a particular flavour of sexuality is religious freedom.

It's simple, really.
 
2014-03-07 02:50:38 PM  

SkinnyHead: Why should a religious person have to chose between his religion and his profession?


Good question. Let's ask the religions that somehow made "being gay" more of a sin than:
-working on the Sabbath
-sleeping with a menstruating woman
-sleeping with a married woman (if you're not her husband, that is)
-blasphemy
-making fun of a bald Rabbi ("not having proper respect for religious authority" is the heading, IIRC)

all of which carry the Biblical death penalty.

I think the better question is: "why would a deeply religious person enter a profession likely to run afoul of religious demands?" An Orthodox Jew, for example, would have to answer god about working in a non-kosher butcher shop, or they could choose to find a new job.

// plenty of people used to do this, if you believe the "Jews used to have 6-day jobs" trope
// supposedly, I know grandchildren of people who went from 6-day to 6-day
 
2014-03-07 02:51:23 PM  
So...Let's say you have a photographer. Let's call her Johanna....kidding.

Every camp has bigots. Some bigots have camps.
 
2014-03-07 02:52:54 PM  
I am anti gay and straight marriage...


/but if people choose to be miserable, at least let the straights and gays marry then. More misery for all...
 
2014-03-07 02:53:33 PM  

JohnnyBravo: I am sick of this issue.  Who the eff cares?  Go marry the same gender, a turtle or a rock or a tree.  I couldn't care less.


This certainly seems like the kind of post someone who couldn't care less would make.
 
2014-03-07 03:00:18 PM  
I've lost a few bigoted friends over this issue. Woe is me.
 
2014-03-07 03:01:49 PM  

factoryconnection: mark12A: My opposition has more to do with maintaining the traditional functionality of marriage (producing and rearing quality replacement citizens) and not the specter of bearded men in wedding dresses...(ewww!)

How will allowing gays to marry diminish the:
a. Child output of heterosexual unions?
b. Adopting/child-rearing abilities of gays?
c. Enforcement of marriage as a child-rearing legal obligation?

How does it affect your rights at all, in fact?


I don't like the idea of any man rearing kids, gay or otherwise.  Just seems wrong.  Gays raising them is OK by me though.
 
2014-03-07 03:03:11 PM  

Krymson Tyde: I've lost a few bigoted friends over this issue. Woe is me.


 Zounds!  Whatever will you do?
 
2014-03-07 03:04:52 PM  
No, I think the real bigots are the bigots who call bigots who call bigots, bigots.

//bigots.
 
2014-03-07 03:05:26 PM  
Executive Summary: "I want to hate but I want to be the good guy too!"
 
2014-03-07 03:05:49 PM  

Theaetetus: SkinnyHead: The original meaning of the term "bigot" referred to people who were intolerant of the religious beliefs of others.

Actually, the original meaning of the term "bigot" was "religious hypocrite", and is related to the Italian "bigotto", or a person who is overly and publicly devout - e.g. the people described in Matthew 6:5.

And, accordingly, it's doubly appropriate for Christians who claim to follow teachings that direct them not to judge others and to love each other, but instead spread homophobia and hate.


I thought it was a type of bread or cookie.
 
2014-03-07 03:06:14 PM  
BIGOTRY AND PREJUDICE ARE THINGS YOU SHOULD BE ASHAMED OF!

For f*ck's sake, this is not a hard concept. I do not have to - and I will not - tolerate or be respectful of your views inasmuch as they are based on fundamental assumptions about how certain groups of people are inferior to others because of circumstances that are beyond anyone's control, i.e. race, sex, sexuality, disability, etc. It is morally disgusting to hold such views, in a way that is qualitatively different than, for example, hating Raiders' fans if you're a Chargers' fan, when that kind of animosity is merely silly and inconsequential (that is, no one is seriously suggesting Raiders' fans be barred access to rights, freedoms, and liberties in the United States on account of being a Raiders' fan). You want to hate on someone because of a fundamental attribute of their being? Go f*ck yourself. I hope you rot, and I will not show you respect. You don't deserve any. You should be made to feel guilty, and ashamed, and embarrassed to hold such views because they are wrong on every conceivable level.

I am so sick and goddamn tired of the "tone" argument. "Oh, could you be a little more polite when responding to people who hate blacks/gays/women and want to strip them of their rights/prevent them from having rights? That'd be great." F*ck you. I'm reminded of my favorite quote by MLK Jr.:

I must confess that over the past few years I have been gravely disappointed with the white moderate. I have almost reached the regrettable conclusion that the Negro's great stumbling block in his stride toward freedom is not the White Citizen's Counciler or the Ku Klux Klanner, but the white moderate, who is more devoted to "order" than to justice; who prefers a negative peace which is the absence of tension to a positive peace which is the presence of justice; who constantly says: "I agree with you in the goal you seek, but I cannot agree with your methods of direct action"; who paternalistically believes he can set the timetable for another man's freedom; who lives by a mythical concept of time and who constantly advises the Negro to wait for a "more convenient season."

The denial of equality in this country for certain groups of people based on characteristics that are amoral (that is, neither good nor bad) and beyond the control of anyone should enrage people of conscience. But, it seems, there are still those recipients of (white/straight/male) privilege who agree in principle with equality but in practice don't want to be inconvenienced with having to stress out over dealing with how to effect change for the better. They see these arguments and debates as abstract hypotheticals, and not very real situations with very real consequences for very real people. And to them I also say "Go f*ck yourself."

/seriously hoping I used those apostrophes correctly
 
2014-03-07 03:07:15 PM  
You know if they want to keep playing these gotcha word games with "bigot" and "intolerance" we'll just come up with much more specific terms that let you know you're a stupid asshole.
 
2014-03-07 03:09:20 PM  
We had this discussion a long time ago . . .

Let me ask you about the boycott business since we have two or three minutes left. You've used the boycott as a very effective weapon, and you regard that certainly as the right of your forces not to buy and so on. Do you see any right comparable on the part of the store owner not to sell? Do you see in your freedom to associate any right of others not to associate? 

http://mlk-kpp01.stanford.edu/primarydocuments/Vol5/26Nov1960_Debate wi thJamesJ.KilpatrickonTheNation'sFuture.pdf

And this question was answered by the Supreme Court.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heart_of_Atlanta_Motel_v._United_States
 
2014-03-07 03:10:49 PM  

SkinnyHead: Theaetetus: SkinnyHead: Marcus Aurelius: SkinnyHead: The original meaning of the term "bigot" referred to people who were intolerant of the religious beliefs of others.

It's a good thing that no one is being forced to get gay married then.

Should wedding photographers be forced to photograph gay weddings, despite religious objections?

Nope. They can close their businesses go be as bigoted in their homes as they want. No one is forced to do anything they don't want.

What you're asking is a different question: should a business owner be allowed to discriminate and refuse service to a minority group?

Religious people have rights too.  Why should a religious person have to chose between his religion and his profession?  To insist that a religious person violate his religion or give up his profession, when there are reasonable alternatives available, would be intolerant.  There's a word for that kind of intolerance.


If your religion has that many restrictions that it affects your job, you need to find a new profession. Or stop believing the religious dogma and understand that someone else being gay isn't the reason you secretly want to suck a cock in the airport men's room.
 
2014-03-07 03:11:12 PM  

SkinnyHead: Religious people have rights too.  Why should a religious person have to chose between his religion and his profession?  To insist that a religious person violate his religion or give up his profession, when there are reasonable alternatives available, would be intolerant.  There's a word for that kind of intolerance.


I wonder how you would feel if the photographer or baker were employees of the photography studio or bakery? Would the owner/boss of the studio/bakery be justified in firing their employee for refusing to do their job?
 
2014-03-07 03:11:21 PM  
SkinnyHead: Toleration and accommodation of the sincerely held religious beliefs of others, when feasible, is certainly a more enlightened approach.

i4.ytimg.com
 
2014-03-07 03:11:56 PM  
Say what??


bigot.

urp....excuse me.
 
2014-03-07 03:12:16 PM  
The term perversion was also used in the pre-Vatican II era by some Roman Catholics to describe the process of converting from Roman Catholicism to Protestantism Whereas a protestant who joined Roman Catholicism was described as a convert a Catholic who became a Protestant was called a pervert The phrase is no longer used by mainstream Catholicism though a small conservative fringe do on occasion still use it.

http://www.infosources.org/what_is/Perversion.html
 
2014-03-07 03:13:02 PM  
Let's just call it what it is:  religious conservatives are primitive screwheads who can't keep up with society.  Their beliefs SHOULD be shunned and bulldozed by better ideas no matter how much they cry about it.
 
2014-03-07 03:13:46 PM  

threedingers: Condemnation of a religious belief is bigotry.


by this definition, every religious person is a bigot towards every religion EXCEPT his/her own.
 
2014-03-07 03:14:11 PM  
Black people who spoke out against the Klan were the real bigots apparently.
 
2014-03-07 03:14:14 PM  

Barfmaker: I see it as solely a gender discrimination issue. A man and a woman are legally entitled to share spousal benefits, a man and a man are not (or a woman and a woman).

So either it's okay to discriminate based on gender under the law, or it is not.


This. I've been saying this since the start and it's why I prefer to use the term "same-sex marriage" as opposed to "gay marriage".
 
2014-03-07 03:15:25 PM  

Arkanaut: Theaetetus: SkinnyHead: The original meaning of the term "bigot" referred to people who were intolerant of the religious beliefs of others.

Actually, the original meaning of the term "bigot" was "religious hypocrite", and is related to the Italian "bigotto", or a person who is overly and publicly devout - e.g. the people described in Matthew 6:5.

And, accordingly, it's doubly appropriate for Christians who claim to follow teachings that direct them not to judge others and to love each other, but instead spread homophobia and hate.

I thought it was a type of bread or cookie.


No, you're thinking of the thing that sprays water on your ass.
 
2014-03-07 03:16:47 PM  

Arkanaut: No, I think the real bigots are the bigots who call bigots who call bigots, bigots.

//bigots.


Buffalo buffalo buffalo Buffalo buffalo.
 
2014-03-07 03:17:18 PM  
If you fit the definition of a word, that's what you are. This is not a debate. This is not an "insult." This is the English language.
 
2014-03-07 03:18:44 PM  
skyotter

by this definition, every religious person is a bigot towards every religion EXCEPT his/her own.

That's not true. Some religions can exist compatibly without even thinking the other is wrong, much less condemning each other. The problems come with the "we're 100% right and you're incompatible" religions, like Christianity.

Shinto and Romuva, for example, have no beef.
 
2014-03-07 03:19:06 PM  

palelizard: Arkanaut: Theaetetus: SkinnyHead: The original meaning of the term "bigot" referred to people who were intolerant of the religious beliefs of others.

Actually, the original meaning of the term "bigot" was "religious hypocrite", and is related to the Italian "bigotto", or a person who is overly and publicly devout - e.g. the people described in Matthew 6:5.

And, accordingly, it's doubly appropriate for Christians who claim to follow teachings that direct them not to judge others and to love each other, but instead spread homophobia and hate.

I thought it was a type of bread or cookie.

No, you're thinking of the thing that sprays water on your ass.


A priest?
 
2014-03-07 03:19:58 PM  

threedingers: Condemnation of a religious belief is bigotry.


While I'm fairly sure you're not serious, this is as good a place to point this out as any other in this thread.  Bigotry is not simply condemnation of someone else or their ideas.  Here's the definition:

: a person who strongly and unfairly dislikes other people, ideas, etc. :

Bolded for edification.  I strongly dislike the people who picket soldiers funerals, but not unfairly, so I'm not bigoted against them.  I dislike them because they're assholes, which is completely fair.
 
2014-03-07 03:21:36 PM  
Once I saw this guy on a bridge about to jump. I said, "Don't do it!"
He said, "Nobody loves me."
I said, "God loves you. Do you believe in God?"
He said, "Yes."
I said, "Are you a Christian or a Jew?"
He said, "A Christian."
I said, "Me, too! Protestant or Catholic?"
He said, "Protestant."
I said, "Me, too! What franchise?"
He said, "Baptist."
I said, "Me, too! Northern Baptist or Southern Baptist?"
He said, "Northern Baptist."
I said, "Me, too! Northern Conservative Baptist or Northern Liberal Baptist?"
He said, "Northern Conservative Baptist."
I said, "Me, too! Northern Conservative Baptist Great Lakes Region, or Northern Conservative Baptist Eastern Region?" He said, "Northern Conservative Baptist Great Lakes Region."
I said, "Me, too! Northern Conservative Baptist Great Lakes Region Council of 1879, or Northern Conservative Baptist Great Lakes Region Council of 1912?"
He said, "Northern Conservative Baptist Great Lakes Region Council of 1912."
I said, "Die, heretic!" And I pushed him over.


In a post-Reformation world, it is nearly impossible to create a legal framework that reflects the deeply held principles of the numerous churches that have split away from mainline Protestantism.  Many of the splitters are more conservative, while many of the mainline Protestants have become more liberal.  There is no perfectly accurate definition of what deeply held Christian beliefs are, because so many churches disagree in issues like ecumenism, gay rights, abortion, women's rights, or the death penalty, and many Christians pick and choose which beliefs to follow within their own churches.

/As an Episcopalian, I'd like to force my beliefs on the rest of the country.
//Gay marriage for anyone who wants one!
///It doesn't work that way.
 
2014-03-07 03:22:46 PM  

ArcadianRefugee: Barfmaker: I see it as solely a gender discrimination issue. A man and a woman are legally entitled to share spousal benefits, a man and a man are not (or a woman and a woman).

So either it's okay to discriminate based on gender under the law, or it is not.

This. I've been saying this since the start and it's why I prefer to use the term "same-sex marriage" as opposed to "gay marriage".


I've also been saying this for awhile and it has come-up in court arguments.

Discrimination against same-sex marriage is gender discrimination in the same sense that discrimination against inter-racial marriages is racial discrimination.
 
2014-03-07 03:24:26 PM  

skyotter: threedingers: Condemnation of a religious belief is bigotry.

by this definition, every religious person is a bigot towards every religion EXCEPT his/her own.


Not necessarily.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ecumenism

But sometimes, yeah.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Doctrine_of_separation
 
Displayed 50 of 315 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
On Twitter





In Other Media


  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report