Define intolerance. Having a difference of opinion doesn't make one intolerant or a bigot. Unfortunately, anyone having a different opinion than a gay or lesbian, on the subject, is viewed as a bigot and intolerant. Seems like a double standard to me.
I suppose intolerant to the point of trying to physically and legally suppress the other's beliefs.
People are not going to agree on homosexuality. That's fine. Attempting to legally discriminate (withholding access to state and other benefits/services) against someone for being gay is bigotry.
For the record, legally discriminating against someone for being anti-gay, is also bigotry.
It very much is a choice. There is nothing "natural" about a man dressed in a leather vest wearing makeup, fish net stockings and high heels prancing like a ballerina in a parade. It's a choice based in lust. If there is a "gay gene" then it must be passed from one generation to the next. Two members of the same gender can't procreate therefore that gene can't be passed to the next generation. It is a choice, or in the case of individuals such as prisoners, a lack of options. Even in ancient Japan, when Samurais would be gone from their wives for years at a time would turn to homosexual acts. Members of the GLBT community have become bullies and are trying to shove their way of life down everyone else' throat. In the end, I'm actually OK if Bill wants to go home and let his gym trainer, Lars, bend him over a couch. Just don't try to convince me they are in love because it's "natural".
Sorry egro...that doesn't appear bigotted. Charged speech, certainly, but there was no more than an opinion being stated.
Aleger, I would have to disagree with your definition of intolerance. By your definition everyone is intolerant for trying to legislate based on their own belief system. Lobbyists are nothing more, by your definition, than representatives of intolerance and legislators nothing more than bigots.
If you're referring to gay/lesbian marrital rights, then again, you're definition does not fit what's occurring. The rights aren't rights as you'd like to call them, but rather priveleges. Those priveleges are granted, by our society, for the distinct role heterosexuals play in expanding the society.
A homosexual's rights are not being infringed upon, nor should they be. And I, for one, am quite tired of the term "rights" being interchanged with priveleges and then used as a reason to call people who disagree with the homosexual agenda bigots and intolerants.
Sorry Stephen you are wrong. Marriage is a right and has nothing to do with procreation. It is not required for procreation, marriage was originally a property transaction between families.
Even if I grant you that marriage is a privilege and not a right, there are still no non-religious grounds to withhold it from homosexuals. Other privileges society bestows like driving licenses, property, etc., are not withheld from anyone by virtue of how they were born.
aleger...I thank you for your opinion and will leave us at agreeing to disagree. I'd love to debate this fully, unfortunately, this isn't a very good forum to do so.
Pin it! 
10 comments
Login to comment →
ahnyerkeester 11 years, 8 months ago
bigot (ˈbɪɡət) — n
a person who is intolerant of any ideas other than his or her own, esp on religion, politics, or race
Reply
aleger 11 years, 8 months ago
@ahnyerkeester -- precisely!
Reply
mango333 11 years, 8 months ago
Define intolerance. Having a difference of opinion doesn't make one intolerant or a bigot. Unfortunately, anyone having a different opinion than a gay or lesbian, on the subject, is viewed as a bigot and intolerant. Seems like a double standard to me.
Reply
aleger 11 years, 8 months ago
@Stephen
I suppose intolerant to the point of trying to physically and legally suppress the other's beliefs.
People are not going to agree on homosexuality. That's fine. Attempting to legally discriminate (withholding access to state and other benefits/services) against someone for being gay is bigotry.
For the record, legally discriminating against someone for being anti-gay, is also bigotry.
Reply
Filadog 11 years, 8 months ago
It very much is a choice. There is nothing "natural" about a man dressed in a leather vest wearing makeup, fish net stockings and high heels prancing like a ballerina in a parade. It's a choice based in lust. If there is a "gay gene" then it must be passed from one generation to the next. Two members of the same gender can't procreate therefore that gene can't be passed to the next generation. It is a choice, or in the case of individuals such as prisoners, a lack of options. Even in ancient Japan, when Samurais would be gone from their wives for years at a time would turn to homosexual acts. Members of the GLBT community have become bullies and are trying to shove their way of life down everyone else' throat. In the end, I'm actually OK if Bill wants to go home and let his gym trainer, Lars, bend him over a couch. Just don't try to convince me they are in love because it's "natural".
Reply
egro 11 years, 8 months ago
Bigot: see Filadog
Reply
mango333 11 years, 8 months ago
Sorry egro...that doesn't appear bigotted. Charged speech, certainly, but there was no more than an opinion being stated.
Aleger, I would have to disagree with your definition of intolerance. By your definition everyone is intolerant for trying to legislate based on their own belief system. Lobbyists are nothing more, by your definition, than representatives of intolerance and legislators nothing more than bigots.
If you're referring to gay/lesbian marrital rights, then again, you're definition does not fit what's occurring. The rights aren't rights as you'd like to call them, but rather priveleges. Those priveleges are granted, by our society, for the distinct role heterosexuals play in expanding the society.
A homosexual's rights are not being infringed upon, nor should they be. And I, for one, am quite tired of the term "rights" being interchanged with priveleges and then used as a reason to call people who disagree with the homosexual agenda bigots and intolerants.
Reply
aleger 11 years, 8 months ago
Sorry Stephen you are wrong. Marriage is a right and has nothing to do with procreation. It is not required for procreation, marriage was originally a property transaction between families.
Even if I grant you that marriage is a privilege and not a right, there are still no non-religious grounds to withhold it from homosexuals. Other privileges society bestows like driving licenses, property, etc., are not withheld from anyone by virtue of how they were born.
Reply
mango333 11 years, 8 months ago
aleger...I thank you for your opinion and will leave us at agreeing to disagree. I'd love to debate this fully, unfortunately, this isn't a very good forum to do so.
Peace be unto you and God bless.
Reply
aleger 11 years, 8 months ago
Stephen,
Fair enough. Have a good night.
Reply