THis just popped up in my newsfeed and it reminded me of peoples confusion about what a bigot is. I thought this might help explain it more clearly and show how this is not just some debaters opinion :
Article is from the Daily Beast, this morning.Quote:
http://1-ps.googleusercontent.com/h/...PubgKEMO6n.png Originally Posted by AlyssaEimers http://1-ps.googleusercontent.com/h/...fD3wKWbofH.png
While I do not care one way or the others about the boy scouts, I detest the word bigot. It is no more appropriate in my opinion to call one group of people a bigot for their beliefs than it is to call another group of people dumb looser because of theirs.
Apparently Rubio knocked 'em dead yesterday at CPAC, and they particularly ate up these lines:
Now in order to work together with people that you disagree with, there has to be mutual respect. That means I respect people that disagree with me on certain things, but they have to respect me too.
Just because I believe that states should have the right to define marriage in a traditional way does not make me a bigot. Just because we believe life, all life — all human life is worthy of protection at every stage in its development does not make you a chauvinist.
All right. I know it sounds intolerant to dismiss every American who agrees with Rubio as a bigot. But look at this from the other side.
Fifty years ago, interracial marriage was illegal across the South. The people who justified this position justified it exactly as Rubio justified his opposition to same-sex marriage yesterday--it should be up to the states. And of course they justified it on Biblical grounds. Almighty God had decreed it. The Mark of Cain and so forth.
Was that a reasonable disagreement? Did the people who held that view deserve to be treated with "mutual respect"? No. They were wrong. Morally wrong. In every way. In 1967, the Supreme Court finally came around, but the position was dead wrong and looks horrifying today.
In 50 years, what will Rubio's position look like? I think I know. Now, this comment thread is going to fill up with conservatives discoursing on the vast differences between race and sexuality. Gibberish. The same arguments were used then as now, and they were excuses then and are excuses now. Love is love. The heart--whether inside white, black, straight, gay, or any other kind of casing--feels the same elation and pain. And then there is the question of law, and how society ought to recognize love that is equal. So yep, people who don't accept all this are bigots on this point.
Like The Daily Beast on Facebook and follow us on Twitter for updates all day long.
Newsweek/Daily Beast special correspondent Michael Tomasky is also editor ofDemocracy: A Journal of Ideas. Follow Michael Tomasky on Twitter at@mtomasky.
For inquiries, please contact The Daily Beast at firstname.lastname@example.org.
Love this quote!
As for "disagreeing with someone's lifestyle", I really despise that expression. Being gay is not a "lifestyle" unto itself. It's not a style. It's simply what a gay person is. And you can't "disagree" with it. That language drives me bonkers, it doesn't even make sense.
No, Gloria, this is you accepting a lie. You are accepting a lie that being gay is a choice. And unless you are willing to admit that you have a deep and powerful longing to make sweet tender love to women, but you deny that longing to choose heterosexuality, I do not believe a single word you have to say on this matter, because I believe that you, like me, were fortunate enough to be born straight.
Enjoying yachting is a lifestyle. Being gay is not.
The second problem with this stance is that people who use this to defend their bigotry forget that in actively working to deny homosexual rights they are overtly missing the component of "compassion' that Rick Warren is preaching. If you are to throw out this quote as though you live by it, perhaps you ought to actually DO so.
Yes, GLoria there is. Do you think that the gay teens who are committing suicide and presenting heartwrenching, literally heart BREAKING stories of being bullied, excluded, tormented by their straight peers, of wanting to disappear, to die, to be someone different than who they were, to LONGED to be straight because of people like you who refused to accept them for who they were ...... I've read books by them, I've seen speeches by them, I've read articles by them, and, sadly, I've read suicide notes by them. And it is impossible for me to say that they are lying. What basis do you have for calling these people who have lived, and died, with NO agenda, their experiences, liars?
And again, tell me when you chose, Gloria.
PS, I like the way you avoided the compassion part. That part must sting a little, huh?
Who cares if it's a choice? Seriously. Even if it were 100% a choice, a "lifestyle" so to speak, you wouldn't have to agree with it to accept that these same people deserve equal rights and protections and even, yes, respect and compassion. I disagree with homeschooling, and that's 100% a choice, but I think homeschoolers deserve all of the same rights and respect and protection that I get. You can't have it both ways; you can't claim that you merely disagree with them but that you are loving and compassionate towards then while AT THE SAME TIME working to actively keep them from having equal rights. Actions speak much, much louder than words.