Amazon.com Widgets
  • Yes, let's look at the definition.

    Denying another human of the same rights you are entitled to just because they prefer someone of the same sex does make you a bigot. The definition of a bigot (as given by dictionary.com) is "a person who is utterly intolerant of any differing creed, belief, or opinion." By denying a homosexual couple the right to get married to each other, you are being intolerant of their beliefs and opinion. This in turn makes you a bigot.

  • As long as heterosexuals have the right to marry...

    There are no secular reasons why gays should not be allowed to marry, while heterosexuals can. Discriminating on the basis of sexual orientation is unfounded bigotry. Marriage is not simply a religious institution and there is no reason to treat it as such when married couples are granted benefita that unmarried couples are not.

  • Yes, the end

    This goes far beyond the religion shield so many bigots hide behind in defense when called homophobic. Marriage is a legal thing, and it grants legal rights. Without them, a gay couple is treated as a pair of lesser citizens. It's not debatable, civil unions do not give the same privileges.

  • Yes it totally does.

    I'm not going to supply sound reasoning here because I'm tired and just want to share my opinion. I think that gay marriage should be allowed, and that's that. Just know that denying gay marriage isn't a good thing. Furthermore it's not a choice. You're gay, bi, not gay, or pretending to be gay, but truly gay people have no choice over their sexuality, and therefor should be treated like the rest of us.

  • Unless you can categorically identify the date upon which you DECIDED to be heterosexual, you cannot call homosexuality a CHOSEN lifestyle.

    It is not what they CHOOSE! It's what they ARE!

    Once you accept that FACT, there is no reason other than bigotry for discriminating against Gay people, and refusing the right to marry who they wish is discrimination!

    Referring to marriage as being traditionally one man - one woman is in fact absolutely false. Throughout the history of the human race there have been many changes to the way in which relationships are accepted or rejected.

    These include numerous societies in which homosexuality was considered normal and acceptable and male-male and female-female marriages were allowed.

  • It wasn't that long ago...

    It was not that long ago that interracial marriage was deemed amoral and illegal. Not until Loving v. Virginia did the Supreme Court say that it violated their civil rights . This was done over the color of someone's skin.
    It wasn't that long ago that the nazis said Jews couldn't marry Aryans. No one is going to deny the nazis were not bigots and antisemitic. In fact, the nazis held Jews and homosexuals in the same regard. As both were defective members of a "pure" race.
    There is long standing history trying to regulate who someone can marry. This isn't a question of religious belief, this is a legal matter. Period. While not every religious person believes homosexuals are nasty, vial, "disgusting" creatures that are subhuman as some of those post here have stated; some do, and those would be bigots. These laws are state sanctioned bigotry based on levitical law written some 3 millennia ago to deny rights from others. The bible says women shouldn't wear pants or gold jewelry in church so they don't resemble temple prostitutes. I don't say anyone saying those women that do are prostitutes. So because the laws are based on bigotry and pseudo-science that has long since been debunked as garbage, denying same sex marriage is intrinsically an act of bigotry.
    And to the person who mentioned AIDS, the largest rising population of new infections is African American women ages 18 - 24 passed via heterosexual contact. Do some fact checking before you ignorant claims not based on actual published data!
    And remember YOUR freedom to practice your desired religion can not infringe on OTHERS rights. We are a nation based on majority rule, MINORITY RIGHTS. It was bigotry that said African Americans can't marry Caucasians and it's still bigotry now with homosexuals (hint: they claimed religion then too)

  • Homophobia = Bigotry

    Bigot (n.) One who is strongly partial to one's own group and is intolerant of those who differ.

    I'd say denying marriage to another group of people because they want to put their gigglestick into another man absolutely falls into that category. The only arguments against gay marrige are spurred from ignorance or biblethumpers.

  • Yes it does.

    Why should anyone be treated differently because they are interested in the same sex as them?Marriage is the state of being united to a person, should it matter weather it is of the opposite sex or not? No, it shouldn't. By denying gay marriage you are denying the fact that being gay is okay, and you are discriminating against thousands of people just because of a sexual preference. It's like saying that you should deny people of having strawberry flavoured ice cream because you think chocolate is better and nobody should eat strawberry flavoured ice cream. And there are numerous things that are not right in the world we're living in right now. Do you think trees were made to be chopped down and made into desks and tables? Do you think clean air was given by nature for us to pollute it and fill it with harmful gases? Do you think that lakes were given for us to release harmful chemicals and oils into it? NO. So who's to say that marriage was given to us so only people with certain sexual preferences would be able to go through with it? Gays are still people and they have feelings. Why should we teach our children to respect others and teach them equality when we can't even have equality amongst gays and straights?

  • Yes, it does, and nothing else

    Using the bible to deny a minority group rights they are rightfully entitled to under the U.S. constitution makes you a Bigot. People used the bible to justify slavery and deny African Americans their rights, and now today it seen as totally unacceptable to do that anymore. Today exactly that is happening, Gay people are being seen as equals in a growing majority of the population, and a lot of religious people are being seen as extremists, blaming gay people for the worlds problems. People need to be concerned with their own lives, and stop obsessing about what goes on in other peoples lives. States that vehemently oppose gay marriage and any rights period, ironically have one of the highest divorce rates in the country, meanwhile states that allow gay marriage and some rights, have either a declined or stabilized divorce rate.

  • Let's replace some words.

    Think with me real quick. Homosexuality is not the way sex was supposed to be. What is the difference therefore between a gay man and a pedophile? Just because they have a different sexual orientation than you, does that make them bad? Yes.
    <<<<I saw that and thought, let us replace some words and see how logical it sounds. In 20 years, this could very well be a debate. "This goes far beyond the religion shield so many bigots hide behind in defense when called pedophilephobic. Marriage is a legal thing, and it grants legal rights. Without them, a pedophile and child couple is treated as a pair of lesser citizens. It's not debatable, civil unions do not give the same privileges.

  • No, it doesn't.

    It is simply standing up for morals. Marriage is treated by too many people as simply a tax loophole or a social medal to be worn. It's not. It is for bringing children into this world. Last time I checked, you need a man and a woman.
    And for all the homosexuals out there - find something better to do than accuse everyone of being a 'hater' or a 'bigot' or things along those lines. This is an issue where name-calling has replaced meaningful debate and emotion runs deeper than intellect.

  • People forget what being a Bigot means.

    Being a bigot isn't about being against something. A bigot is someone who is against something for no reason. If you have a reason to be against it, something like Religion and personal believe, than you are not a bigot. Liberals and Homosexuals toss that word around meanlessly now to demonize Conservatives. If you have cause to be against something, your not a Bigot.

  • Bigotry is about treating someone differently, not being opposed to their lifestyle, including sexual orientation.

    I agree with Justin.graves, homosexuality is not the way sex is supposed to be. Two parts of your backside are meant for the elimination of feces not intercourse. It is a dirty disgusting act that spread lots of STDs and HIV. Even though this is true, most gays practice unsafe backside sex.
    ==============================================================================
    Bigotry is the state of mind of a bigot: someone who, as a result of their prejudices, treats other people with hatred, contempt, and intolerance on the basis of a person's race, gender, sexual orientation, gender identity, national origin, religion, language, socioeconomic status, or other status.
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bigotry
    =====================================
    I don't treat gays any differently that heterosexuals; I just think they are sick and their sexual practices perverse; therefore, by definition, I am not guilty of bigotry. Opposing their lifestyle does not make me a bigot; believing marriage is between a man and a woman, not two men or two women does not make be a bigot.
    ===================================================================
    And, yes it does make gays bad; because they are trying to make a perverse form of sexual behavior acceptable; despite the fact that it is dirty and dangerous and not normal. And, most gay men do not practice safe sex and most have many partners; actually, many live a life style where open affairs are accepted. Many have over 50 partners upwards to 300 or more. Homosexual men have the highest rate of HIV and many are heavy IV drug users or use other non-IV heavy duty drugs.
    =======================================================================
    And, Gays should never be allowed to raise children as proven by a recent study.
    ============================================================================
    New Research on Children of Same-Sex Parents Suggests Differences Matter
    http://blog.heritage.org/2012/06/11/new-research-on-children-of-same-sex-parents-suggests-differences-matter/
    ============================================================================
    Are ‘Gay’ Men More Promiscuous than Straights?
    http://americansfortruth.com/2006/09/28/promiscuity-among-homosexuals/
    ================================================================================
    Promiscuity
    http://factsaboutyouth.com/posts/promiscuity/
    ======================================================================================
    Why Do Gay Men Have an Increased Risk of HIV?
    http://std.about.com/od/glbtcommunity/a/Why-Do-Gay-Men-Have-An-Increased-Risk-Of-Hiv.htm

    ==================================================================================
    And, Lesbians are just as bad!
    ===============================================================================
    Lesbians 'bigger risk takers' than straight women
    http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2000/oct/24/3
    ========================================================
    And, in case you have forgotten what your backside is used for, read this article.
    http://www.kidport.com/reflib/science/HumanBody/DigestiveSystem/RectumAnus.htm

  • Old fashioned views of civil society do not necessarily imply hatred.

    It is possible to believe that gay men and women are morally inferior creatures to their heterosexual counterparts. This is the sort of idea religious fanatics and pseudo-scientific social darwinists hold. That is a bigoted belief.

    On the other hand, it's also possible to maintain ideas about marriage that are neutral as to the moral constitution of gay people. For example, conservatives are fond of the idea that traditional marriage serves as a unique and irreplaceable unit for socializing kids and that gay marriage constitutes an existential threat to marriage. This idea (among others) might be (probably is) *wrong*, but it's not bigoted.

    Too often people conflate bigotry and basic ignorance, as though an intellectual misstep were some grave moral failure. This is the kind of dogmatic "right-thinking = good person" idea that underscores any oppressive orthodoxy, and it's frankly upsetting that liberalism--the doctrine of tolerance, skepticism, and mutual respect within society--would have such narrow-minded adherents.

  • No, it just makes you a huge Ass.

    Denying same sex couples the right to marry does nothing for you other than make you look like the person who wants to squash other people's happiness. It has no effect on you. However, it does not automatically make you a bigot. You can be a bigot and deny marriage to gays, they aren't mutually exclusive, but they are not dependent on each other.

  • Everybody has their own opinions

    just because someone is against gay marriage, it doesn't mean that they are against it just so they can make gays and lesbians feel bad or other "wrong" reasons. People could have legit reasons to oppose gay marriage. I'm completely against prop 8, but I believe in giving everybody the benefit of the doubt. Who am I, or you, to judge the opinions of others without knowing their reasons?

  • Nope, it isn't

    The original purpose of marriage was to create a binding relation between two members of the opposite sex, to allow them to share property and raise children. Supporting that original intent is no bigotry, and repeated attempts by the gay lobby to slander the 50% that oppose gay marriage are the reason why they have such a hard time in conservative areas.

    Posted by: TN05
  • It does not necessarily.

    It all depends on the individual. Some same-sex marriage deniers are bigots but not all. A bigot is simply someone who is intolerant of another's beliefs and opinions. If an anti-gay goes round attacking gays just because they're gay, then yes. That makes them a bigot, but if they treat that gay person like a human being and accept them but still do not agree with their choice of lifestyle, then that does NOT make them a bigot. But even pro-gays can be bigots too. If a pr-gay goes around attacking anti-gays simply because they're anti-gay then they are a bigot too. Homosexuals and other pro-gays think they are the innocent party here and that only religious and other anti-gays can be bigots when they themselves can be bigots themselves but because they think they are right. They just want to play good twoshoes!

  • How is acknowledging the basic truths of biology bigoted?

    According to Merriam-Webster, a bigot is ": a person who strongly and unfairly dislikes other people, ideas, etc. : a bigoted person; especially : a person who hates or refuses to accept the members of a particular group (such as a racial or religious group)." Thus, there are two criteria which must be met for someone to be a bigot in the general sense: 1. The person in question must dislike something. 2. The dislike must be either strong or unfair. Let's examine each of these criteria.

    1. Do those who deny gay marriage to gays dislike gays or gay marriage? Not necessarily. Someone, like a legislator, could do it for money and have no dislike at all for gays. However, it is apparent that some people do in fact dislike gays and/or gay marriage. Thus, in the former case of someone doing the denying for money, they are per se not bigots, whereas in the latter case, they might yet be bigots, pending the second criteria.

    2. Is the dislike strong or unfair? Depending on what you mean, by strong, it might be. The mere thought of gay marriage might turn one's stomach, or seeing a gay person might fill one with rage. In this case, one might be a bigot in the broad sense since the dislike is strong. However, someone who is just like "I don't really think that's a good idea" would not have a strong dislike but only a tepid one, and hence would not be a bigot. In the case of unfairness, if someone denied marriage to a gay man just because he was gay, that would be unfair. However, were someone to deny marriage to a gay because he was trying to marry someone of the same sex, he would not be a bigot but only a rational person. Marriage between two people of the same sex is wholly impossible given human biology (marriage requires at least the possibility of intercourse between the sexes, which is impossible when only one sex is involved).

    In sum, only some of those who deny gays marriage are bigots. Those who deny gay persons marriage to a woman due to a strong or unfair dislike of gays are bigoted toward gays, which is unacceptable; those who deny gay persons from marrying someone of the same sex because they strongly dislike the idea of gay marriage are "bigots" after a fashion, but the category of people who dislike marriage between two people of the same sex unfairly is an empty category, since all dislike of this idea is unjustified. (Love the sinner, hate the sin.)

    In sum, denying marriage to a gay trying to marry another gay does not make you a bigot except in the broadest and least meaningful sense of hatred for an idea, but denying marriage to a gay trying to marry someone of the opposite sex for bad reasons is bigotry.


Leave a comment...
(Maximum 900 words)
GWL-CPA says2013-09-10T20:01:56.183
Homosexuality is not normal. Marriage is between a man and a woman. That is a fact. Because you believe that, it does not make you a bigot.

I am talking about what nature or evolution intended for man and woman, and most of the animals in the animal kingdom, except asexual organisms. Evolution resulted in advanced species where there were two sexual roles, the male role and the female role and evolution created in each species a male and a female. Each has different sex organs (i.E., penis, vagina, womb, breast capable of producing milk after giving birth). For whatever evolutionary reasons, nature evolved whereby both a male and female were needed to make babies to perpetuate the species. Evolution did not create a homosexual species where each member has both sets of sex organs, except in lower life forms where they can create babes asexually.

Here is what a lesbian activist Camille Paglia had to say about nature. Until I found this link, I had never heard or seen anything written by a gay person that actually reflected many of my thoughts on homosexuality.

Regarding change and the right to treatment, lesbian activist Camille Paglia offered the following observations:

Camille Anna Paglia is an American teacher and social critic. Paglia, a self-described dissident feminist, has been a professor at the University of the Arts in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, since 1984.

"Homosexuality is not 'normal.' On the contrary, it is a challenge to the norm; therein rests its eternally revolutionary character Queer theorists - that wizened crew of flimflamming free-loaders - have tried to take the post structuralist tack of claiming that there is no norm, since everything is relative and contingent. This is the kind of silly bind that word-obsessed people get into when they are deaf, dumb, and blind to the outside world. Nature exists, whether academics like it or not. And in nature, procreation is the single, relentless rule. That is the norm. Our sexual bodies were designed for reproduction. Penis fits vagina; no fancy linguistic game-playing can change that biologic fact."

"Given the intense hormonal surge of puberty, the total absence of adult heterosexual desire is neither normal nor natural."

(How true, and again Ms. Paglia confirms what we as therapists have been noting for some time. But it must be realized that there is no doubt that the propaganda has had an effect on the general public, who seem to be increasingly accepting of these notions.)

"I used to feel that the old psychoanalytic model was inadequate in describing the origins of homosexuality as, essentially, arrested development. But it was true that all my gay male friends had powerful, dominating mothers in the prototypical style."

"...ACT-UP's hysteria made me reconsider those vilified therapists and ministers who think change of homosexual orientation is possible and whose meetings are constantly disrupted by gay agitators. Is gay identity so fragile that it cannot bear the thought that some people may not wish to be gay. Sexuality is highly fluid, and reversals are theoretically possible. However, habit is refractory...A phenomenon obvious in the struggle with obesity, smoking, alcoholism, or drug addiction... Helping gays learn how to function heterosexually, if they so wish, is a perfectly worthy aim. We should be honest enough to consider whether homosexuality may not indeed be a pausing at the prepubescent stage when children anxiously band together by gender."

(A very reasonable and sober view of both the extremist attacks that are made on those of us who believe that therapy has something to offer some patients who may wish it, and of the difficulties and resistances, conscious and unconscious, of many homosexuals.)

"The hypocrisy of lesbian feminist politics is clear in the increasing use among lesbians. . .Of sex toys and esoteric sex practices...What bothers me is that the lesbian dildo craze stubbornly avoids acknowledging its anatomy-as-destiny implications. Why stop at dildos? If penetration excites, and if receptive female genitalia are so suited to friction by penis-shaped objects, why not go on to real penises? Dildos, used for thousands of years around the world, have always been understood as temporary stop-gap measures, in the absence of men... Any woman, gay or straight, who cannot respond to penises or who finds them hideous or laughable has been traumatized by some early experience. She is neither complete as a woman nor healthy as a person. We can no longer allow, without protest, obsessives and neurotics to preach a mutilated brand of feminism to trusting young women...Lesbians who use dildos but shun penises must start admitting that they operate sexually not just for women but against men."

(Once again it is refreshing to read Ms. Paglia use words that we professionals have been virtually forbidden to use.)

"It is ridiculous to assert that gay men are interested only in other gay men and would never ogle straight men in barracks showers. When I heard this on TV I burst out laughing. Anyone who belongs to a health club knows better. Sexual tension and appraisal are constants, above all among gay men, who never stop cruising everything in sight. Seduction of straight studs is a highly erotic motif in gay porn."


"We should be aware of the potentially pernicious intermingling of gay activism with science, which produces more propaganda than truth. Gay scientists must be scientists first, gays second."

http://www.Ldolphin.Org/lesbian.Html
http://www.Narth.Com/docs/innate.Html