Reading in context and understanding is the key here and you are not even close to the pier, thus missing the boat. Let me help you with that.
While it is true that people who do not like other or some ideas they can be called bigots also, the term is hardly if ever used for that purpose. The real meaning is the first part of the definition which clearly you are attempting to deflect from. The real meaning, the first one in every definition is about persons who are unfairly intolerant of others. Are you ashamed of being intolerant and wishing to deny others what you can enjoy?
Marriage is the union of one of each sex. It's not about intolerance. It's not about bigotry. It's not about hating homosexuals. It's not about denying anyone rights or being "exclusionary". It's about marriage being the union of one man and one woman. Whether they're straight or homosexual is irrelevant. I can understand why homosexuals wouldn't think marriage was for them. What I don't understand is why they think that society must be required to change the very nature of marriage must be rearranged in order to make allowances for their unorthodox sexual preferences. Marriage will change as our society changes and our social views of marriage change and as states decide for themselves whether or not they want to promote and sanction homosexual unions.
The fact that some of you cannot tolerate a view that traditional marriage, which has served mankind very well for thousands of years, should be redefined all of a sudden to incorporate two new "alternative lifestyle" models is "bigotry".
You don't understand because you only see homosexuality as "sexual preferences," You refuse to acknowledge the love and commitment of the relationships and so it is beyond your comprehension.
Says you? Who dies and left you in charge to define it?Marriage is the union of one of each sex.
Of course it is and your denial does not alter that. Can you honestly claim that you like gays and no I do not mean it in a sexual way. Would you freely associate with them have them as your friends?It's not about intolerance. It's not about bigotry. It's not about hating homosexuals.
Well if you oppose gays getting married you are denying them something, something civilized rational people call rights.It's not about denying anyone rights or being "exclusionary".
Why? Can you name a single reason why or how it affects you one way or the other?It's about marriage being the union of one man and one woman.
No you are attempting to deny it from them.I can understand why homosexuals wouldn't think marriage was for them.
Society by and large is more than willing to accept that gays should be included in any endeavors that any people undertake. What makes you think that you have some monopoly in how marriage should be defined?What I don't understand is why they think that society must be required to change the very nature of marriage must be rearranged in order to make allowances for their unorthodox sexual preferences.
So why are you opposing the inevitable if that is the case? But it is not, the states do not get to decide which people get to be denied what.Marriage will change as our society changes and our social views of marriage change and as states decide for themselves whether or not they want to promote and sanction homosexual unions.
I have a traditional marriage, for more than 40 years, was married in a Cathedral by a Cardinal no less and I feel no threat from gays getting married. Why do you?The fact that some of you cannot tolerate a view that traditional marriage
So did the beliefs that the Earth was flat and slavery was OK. Should humanity have opposed those changes too especially considering that including gays into marriage has absolutely no effect on anyone?which has served mankind very well for thousands of years
This hasn't got anything to do with how I view homosexuality. It has to do with how I see marriage and what marriage actually is. Love and commitment are one thing - marriage is another thing. They're not even necessarily related and people can have all the love and commitment they want without being married. And some marriages are entered into without love and maybe not even commitment nor is marriage actually a guarantee of either love or commitment. The fact that marriage is an institution comprised of one consenting member of each sex does not keep homosexuals from living together and loving together in a committed relationship if that's what they want to do. It just means that they aren't husband and wife, which wouldn't make sense, anyway.
The controlling factor is that marriage is a union between two consenting people of opposite sexes, requiring one of each.
No, it is not intolerant of your views. You still get to have your views. You still get to define marriage however you want, and other people get to define their marriage for themselves as well. You literally think "intolerant" means "they aren't letting me force my views on them."Marriage is the union of one of each sex. It's not about intolerance. It's not about bigotry. It's not about hating homosexuals. It's not about denying anyone rights or being "exclusionary". It's about marriage being the union of one man and one woman. Whether they're straight or homosexual is irrelevant. I can understand why homosexuals wouldn't think marriage was for them. What I don't understand is why they think that society must be required to change the very nature of marriage must be rearranged in order to make allowances for their unorthodox sexual preferences. Marriage will change as our society changes and our social views of marriage change and as states decide for themselves whether or not they want to promote and sanction homosexual unions.
The fact that some of you cannot tolerate a view that traditional marriage, which has served mankind very well for thousands of years, should be redefined all of a sudden to incorporate two new "alternative lifestyle" models is "bigotry".
Yes, exactly. Clearly a distinction of gender. Subject to equal protection challenges. And since we are requiring consenting adults, this rules out pedophilia and bestiality, so I'm glad to hear you will never bring up those slippery slope fallacies again!
No, it is not intolerant of your views. You still get to have your views. You still get to define marriage however you want, and other people get to define their marriage for themselves as well. You literally think "intolerant" means "they aren't letting me force my views on them."
You are forcing your views on others. We are not trying to force anything onto you. Someone else's marriage is not an imposition upon you. Only a child thinks the entire world revolves around them.
The controlling factor is that marriage is a union between two consenting people of opposite sexes, requiring one of each.
Marriage is the union of one of each sex. It's not about intolerance. It's not about bigotry. It's not about hating homosexuals. It's not about denying anyone rights or being "exclusionary". It's about marriage being the union of one man and one woman. Whether they're straight or homosexual is irrelevant. I can understand why homosexuals wouldn't think marriage was for them. What I don't understand is why they think that society must be required to change the very nature of marriage must be rearranged in order to make allowances for their unorthodox sexual preferences. Marriage will change as our society changes and our social views of marriage change and as states decide for themselves whether or not they want to promote and sanction homosexual unions.
The fact that some of you cannot tolerate a view that traditional marriage, which has served mankind very well for thousands of years, should be redefined all of a sudden to incorporate two new "alternative lifestyle" models is "bigotry".
When you badmouth people that have opposing views, you are being intolerant and people who do not support homosexual marriage are very much badmouthed by those that do. It happens on a regular basis and you see it here all the time. It is an attempt to force people to get in line with their view and those who don't are impugned in every way possible. The advocates of homosexual marriage have proven to be very intolerant of opinions different than their own.
except it doesn't require 1 of each nothing that couple has to do needs some one of any particular gender
words is by stringing together sense randomly making not
Aren't you, then, forcing your views on others when you say homosexuality is wrong? Aren't you badmouthing and intolerant then?
Why do you get so upset when people say you are being intolerant, when you are conforming to your own, admitted definition of intolerant?
Or is this how it works: When Papa Bull expresses his opinion, it's free speech. When Deuce expresses his opinion of Papa Bull's opinion, it's intolerance.
head over apparently point flying
I already did and I don't think repeating it will make you more inclined to get a point you don't want to get.
I didn't say homosexuality is wrong. I said that marriage is a union of two people that must have one member of each sex. My position has nothing to do with the rightness or wrongness of homosexuality. It has to do with the nature of marriage. It is a "marriage" of opposite sexes into a single union. Two people of the same sex are just a couple of people. They can love each other. They can engage in sexual activity if they wish. They can live together. They can be devoted to each other. But it can't be marriage because that's not the fundamental nature of marriage. Marriage was never intended nor designed to be some kind of insult to homosexuals. It's purpose isn't to "exclude" homosexuals. The nature of homosexuality is such that homosexuals, for the most part, exclude themselves because their choices in sexual partners make it impossible for those sex partners to be marriage partners because a marriage partner has to be of the opposite sex. Now we might break from that sane and rational tradition of marriage, but it will make us the exception to the rule.
I didn't say homosexuality is wrong. I said that marriage is a union of two people that must have one member of each sex. My position has nothing to do with the rightness or wrongness of homosexuality. It has to do with the nature of marriage. It is a "marriage" of opposite sexes into a single union. Two people of the same sex are just a couple of people. They can love each other. They can engage in sexual activity if they wish. They can live together. They can be devoted to each other. But it can't be marriage because that's not the fundamental nature of marriage. Marriage was never intended nor designed to be some kind of insult to homosexuals. It's purpose isn't to "exclude" homosexuals. The nature of homosexuality is such that homosexuals, for the most part, exclude themselves because their choices in sexual partners make it impossible for those sex partners to be marriage partners because a marriage partner has to be of the opposite sex. Now we might break from that sane and rational tradition of marriage, but it will make us the exception to the rule.
Are you saying it is right then?I didn't say homosexuality is wrong.
Why? Why is it that you never want to answer the real questions?I said that marriage is a union of two people that must have one member of each sex.
Again why on what basis and on who's authority?It has to do with the nature of marriage. It is a "marriage" of opposite sexes into a single union.
Says who? Can you answer that for once?But it can't be marriage because that's not the fundamental nature of marriage.
Yet that is exactly what you advocate.Marriage was never intended nor designed to be some kind of insult to homosexuals. It's purpose isn't to "exclude" homosexuals.
any marriage is still just a couple of peapole like I said we don't have any requirements for marriage that require a specific gender theirs no fundamental requirement for both genders at all
Oil is oil. Vinegar is vinegar. Mixing oil and oil results in something called "oil". Mixing vinegar and vinegar produces something called "vinegar". Only by combining the oil with the vinegar do you get mayonnaise and even though the oil might feel all butt-hurt because it doesn't want to be mixed with vinegar but still wants to be "mayonnaise", the oil will just have to get over it because that's not how it works.
Are you saying it is right then?
Why? Why is it that you never want to answer the real questions?
Again why on what basis and on who's authority?
Says who? Can you answer that for once?
Yet that is exactly what you advocate.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?