BS: Bigots

Subject: RE: BS: Bigots
From: Smokey.
Date: 05 Sep 11 - 06:45 PM

What are ots?

It's a form of sexual attraction, 9.

Subject: RE: BS: Bigots
From: akenaton
Date: 06 Sep 11 - 02:43 AM

Thanks Peter, as you know,I am in full agreement.

Trouble is, folks are still casting about for a painless remedy,but I'm sure its going to take a fair number of "bigots" to mend human society.

Subject: RE: BS: Bigots
From: Donuel
Date: 06 Sep 11 - 11:21 AM

Bigotry can be explained by a total absense of tolerence,

which helps explain all the new local announcements of ZERO TOLERENCE rules. They will be enforced by administrators and Police as they see fit.

Personally I have zero tolerence for zero tolerence nonsense.

Subject: RE: BS: Bigots
From: John P
Date: 06 Sep 11 - 02:50 PM

Bigotry can be explained by a total absense of tolerence,

Nope. You seem to be leaving out the "obstinately and unreasonably wedded to an opinion" part.

Have you noticed how everybody loves bandying the word "bigot" about, but no two people reckon it means the same thing?

Nope. Only amongst definition quibblers.

C'mon folks, do you really not understand what is meant by the word as it is used in today's society? I suppose to be clear we could say "racist bigot" or "sexist bigot" or "anti-gay bigot" or "capitalist bigot", but it's really a lot easier to just say "bigot".

Note: Someone who thinks capitalism is grand is not necessarily a bigot, as the word is normally understood, even if they cling to their ideas after a financial crash. Someone who thinks capitalism is grand and that all socialists are automatically cretins is a bigot. Big difference.

Subject: RE: BS: Bigots
From: GUEST,Steamin' Willie
Date: 06 Sep 11 - 04:11 PM

And vice versa

Subject: RE: BS: Bigots
From: GUEST,Chaz Brewer
Date: 07 Sep 11 - 08:48 AM

The Cambridge Dictionary says;

bigot
noun /ˈbɪg.ət/ [C] disapproving
Definition
a person who has strong, unreasonable beliefs and who thinks that anyone who does not have the same beliefs is wrong

how does this pan out when it comes to religion and the JWs?

CB

Subject: RE: BS: Bigots
From: GUEST,999
Date: 07 Sep 11 - 09:27 AM

Religious people are no more exempt from being bigoted than anyone else is, imo.

Subject: RE: BS: Bigots
From: akenaton
Date: 07 Sep 11 - 01:48 PM

Bigotry is in the mind of the beholder.

Subject: RE: BS: Bigots
From: Big Al Whittle
Date: 07 Sep 11 - 04:30 PM

I hate certain cuts of lamb - they're definitely gigotted.

Subject: RE: BS: Bigots
From: GUEST,999
Date: 07 Sep 11 - 04:53 PM

And certain taps are spigotted.

Subject: RE: BS: Bigots
From: GUEST,Chongo Chimp
Date: 07 Sep 11 - 06:31 PM

Here's a really neat one...

#####

Subject: RE: BS: Bigots
From: Big Al Whittle
Date: 07 Sep 11 - 06:42 PM

Just a figotte of speech.....

Subject: RE: BS: Bigots
From: Big Al Whittle
Date: 08 Sep 11 - 04:06 AM

When it comes to bigotry
And certainly spiggottry
You have to turn off the tap,
And cut the crap -
Its really obligatory.

Subject: RE: BS: Bigots
From: GUEST,The Length
Date: 08 Sep 11 - 05:01 AM

Bigot or racist is word used on mudcat when an argument is lost.

Subject: RE: BS: Bigots
From: Penny S.
Date: 08 Sep 11 - 05:50 AM

I keep remembering the shocked faces at a Quaker conference when, seeing a timetabled item about bigotry I essayed a joke, "If there's one thing I really can't stand, it's a bigot!" They didn't even relax when I got to the end.

Penny

Subject: RE: BS: Bigots
From: GUEST,pete from seven stars link
Date: 08 Sep 11 - 10:30 AM

good one-the length.

Subject: RE: BS: Bigots
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 08 Sep 11 - 12:48 PM

"Bigot or racist is word used on mudcat when an argument is lost."
Or when posters make bigoted or racist statements - we've just had a thread closed down because of the over-indulgence in the latter.
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Bigots
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 08 Sep 11 - 04:25 PM

'Bigots' is what certain people call you, when they can't win an argument with facts, but want to gather emotional support against you, from like minded non-thinkers!!!!

GfS

Subject: RE: BS: Bigots
From: Justa Picker
Date: 08 Sep 11 - 04:41 PM

Everyone is a bigot. Some are just more reluctant to admit it than others.

Subject: RE: BS: Bigots
From: frogprince
Date: 08 Sep 11 - 04:42 PM

"Bigotry is in the mind of the beholder"

I know a local man who refers to black men as niggers, to black women as niggresses, and to black children as niggrettes. He doesn't do it as any kind of humor; he does it in the context of incessently spewing hatred. Ake, do you really believe that any bigotry in this case is just in my mind?

Subject: RE: BS: Bigots
From: GUEST,The Length
Date: 08 Sep 11 - 04:48 PM

"Bigot or racist is word used on mudcat when an argument is lost."
Or when posters make bigoted or racist statements - we've just had a thread closed down because of the over-indulgence in the latter.
Jim Carroll"

A perfect example.

I guess someone expressed an opinion on a thread and this guy didn't like it, so he called him a bigot or racist.

Thanks buddy for this.

Subject: RE: BS: Bigots
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 08 Sep 11 - 04:58 PM

The problem with the use of the word 'Bigot' and 'Racists', by those that use it, is they tend to also spew some other accompanying garbage, that shows how short sighted, and dumb they are..and have to resort to worn out 'left-liberal' talking point tactics. They are clearly out of touch, and hung over into the past, when calling someone that MIGHT have go them a little mileage......maybe! Losers use it all the time!!

GfS

Subject: RE: BS: Bigots
From: John P
Date: 08 Sep 11 - 05:09 PM

Guest the Length,
"I guess someone expressed an opinion on a thread and this guy didn't like it, so he called him a bigot or racist."

You obviously don't know what you're talking about. Did you see the thread in question? There was a person using extremely disparaging and offensive terminology to describe a large group of people. It was no-holds-barred bigotry. I'm sorry the thread was shut down. The asshole should just have been kicked off the site.

"Bigot or racist is word used on mudcat when an argument is lost."

Nope. Not that I've seen, Can you provide some examples? You seem to be agreeing about this with Guest from Sanity and Akenaton, two well-known anti-gay bigots. Do you really want to do that?

Justa Picker says:
"Everyone is a bigot. Some are just more reluctant to admit it than others."

This is an interesting idea. Why do you think so? Can you explain it further? What are you bigoted against?

Subject: RE: BS: Bigots
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 08 Sep 11 - 05:42 PM

john P.: "Justa Picker says:
"Everyone is a bigot. Some are just more reluctant to admit it than others."
This is an interesting idea. Why do you think so? Can you explain it further? What are you bigoted against? "

I'm not bigoted...I hate everybody......equally, too!

GfS

Subject: RE: BS: Bigots
From: Jeri
Date: 08 Sep 11 - 06:11 PM

I happen to agree with Justa Picker. People who are bigoted and are happy being bigoted are pains in the ass. People who know they're bigoted and try to overcome it are possibly the best of us. People who think they're free from bigotry and pronounce this with a holier-than-thou "you must be talkin' 'bout somebody else" are the most dangerous people.

We're all bigoted. It's part of being human. My family is better than other people's families. My school is better, my town is better, my country is better, my religion is better, my logic is better, my political beliefs, my sense of style, my taste in music, my chili, my coffee is better than your coffee.

Strictly according to some definitions of "bigot" we can't NOT be bigots. Even if you add the qualification of intolerance to others' beliefs, we probably fit in there somewhere. Because we are RIGHT, and our ways are better.

The problem is when we start treating other people differently based on our beliefs. If we don't admit the possibility that we, meaning each one of us, is capable of letting our beliefs affect our relationships with others, we almost surely WILL.

I always thought I wasn't bigoted, but then came a situation at work when a guy who worked for me got into trouble. I'd often eat lunch in my car, listen to the radio and sneak cigarettes. I remember thinking, during one of these lunch time rituals, about whether I believed he should get a second chance or be let go, and I didn't have much faith that he'd ever amount to anything. I remember then questioning why I believed that, and the answer, combined with the knowledge that I would soon have a very crucial decision about his future to make, scared the SHIT out of me. I didn't really like myself just then, but I think I would have been a lot worse off if I hadn't even admitted I might be a bit prejudiced.

Subject: RE: BS: Bigots
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 08 Sep 11 - 06:21 PM

"I guess someone expressed an opinion on a thread and this guy didn't like it, so he called him a bigot or racist"
Nope - the individual in question who brought the discussion crashing around our ears claimed that all Travellers (gypsies et al) were thieving scum who should all be sent back to where they came from and that he (the bigot) was delighted at the fact that all Travellers, (because of the life they are forced to live) have short lifespans and will not live as long as the rest of us.
His "right to say what he believed" was defended by somebody who has previously claimed that "all male Pakistanis were potential paedophiles because of their culture" - bigotry, racism - what??
It would be helpful with these discussions if people who make statements such as are being made here would actually look into the facts of the cases before putting finger to keyboard.
Bigots and racists are not an imaginary species - they really are out there - as Mulder and Scully have occasionally been heard to remark!
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Bigots
From: Big Al Whittle
Date: 08 Sep 11 - 07:05 PM

Strange word all the same.

Why not smallgotted, or littlegotted, or tinygotted.....

Perhaps because of my sobriquet, I detect a certain sizeist agenda against us big-ots.

Its too easy to point the finger.

Subject: RE: BS: Bigots
From: GUEST,The Length
Date: 08 Sep 11 - 07:46 PM

Some of the comments here are just crazy. Are you saying I have to agree with you or support you to not be considered a bigot?

My job in life is to live my life, in the best way possible according to my morals. I think people ought to grow thicker skin and realize there are jerks everywhere, but those jerks have a right to their opinion just as you do.

If people thought their way was the only right way they'd have enough confidence to just live it without calling their opponent a bigot. Its appeared to me that if you don't agree with or support gay issues you are a bigot. I really don't care what two guys get up to in a bedroom. When they wave and blow kisses at me and thrust their penis in a gold G sting at people in the street from the back of a pink truck on National Gay Rights day, hell yeah, I will say I find this offensive.


If someone says "I simply can't accept homosexuality, the thought of two men in and out of each other like pistons is repulsive". Maybe they feel issues concerning race is abused by some as a tool in certain issues ?

I would like to add, I have no problems with either of the above. Let's say I did, then anyone, who has a problem with my views and my stance on these two issues is the one with the problem, not me.

It appears to me that if you don't agree with or support certain issues on this site you are a bigot. I don't think disagreeing with a lifestyle or point of view makes you a bigot.

My interpretation of the word is that a bigot is someone who is not prepared to listen to alternative views or even consider them, so to me that would make the comment above by Jim Carroll bigoted.

If you listen and accept that someone else has different views, attitudes or behaviour but you don't agree with them that's fine.

John P, people may disagree with the lifestyle or those you refer to in a previous thread, but do you agree, you are the one who is wrong, supporting people who are in fact breaking the law ?

That doesn't make this person a bigot. It simply means they have another point of view and talk from the hip in a language that is normal to them.

I repeat my earlier comment, "Bigot or racist is word used on mudcat when an argument is lost."

Subject: RE: BS: Bigots
From: Jeri
Date: 08 Sep 11 - 08:18 PM

I do think that calling a person a bigot is just a way of demonizing them. It's a way to push them further away. Once you label a person a "bigot", you may not see a need to try to understand a single thing they say. It makes more sense to me to label things a person does or says as bigoted and not label the person.

True, there are people who can be relied upon to say or do bigoted things, but most of us don't know each other well enough to never want to try to understand another person's point of view, and if you dislike someone that much, why the hell are you having a discussion with them?

If you so look down on someone else, aren't you also a bigot?

Subject: RE: BS: Bigots
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 08 Sep 11 - 08:53 PM

"Some of the comments here are just crazy."
Yes they are - you've just added to them.
Are you claiming tht racism or bigotry doesn't exist or what?
If the two examples I provided aren't bigotry and racism - what are they.
Describing whole ethnic groups as "all thieving scum" and taking pleasure in the fact that they will all die prematurely is racist bigotry.
Describing a whole ethnic group as "thieving Pikeys (the traveller equivelant of "nigger") scum" is racist bigotry
Describing all male Pakistanis as "culturally inclined to paedophelia" is plain and simple racism.
These terms are intended to insult, demean, persecute and even terrorise whole cultures and races - they have even led to wholsale slaughter of ethnic groups (ever heard of the ethnic cleansing that took place in former Yugoslavia and Ruanda, Civilised countries have been forced to pass laws to prevent the damage such beliefs do to our society - laws against "the incitement to race hattred" (are these anti-racist laws bigoted?   
Do you find these opinions acceptable on an open discussion forum?
Nobody is attempting to "look down" on anybody"; rather we are suggesting that the demeaning of anybody because of their race, colour or creed is a form of terrorism which ruins, and even ends lives.
And that includes your own generalising of homosexuals.
I seem to remember there being a bit of an altercation some sixty years ago that sent six million Jews and a quarter of a million gypsies to Nazi gas chambers because they were Jews and Gypsies (can't remember the number of homosexuals offhand, but they were included in the figures).
So if my abhorrence of racism and bigotry makes me a bigot, doesn't your opposition to my expressing my opinion on the matter make you a bigot?
And so ad infinitum.....
Don't be silly!!
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Bigots
From: Smokey.
Date: 08 Sep 11 - 09:33 PM

It seems to me that bigotry's more about attitude than content, and it very often takes a bigot to accuse another of bigotry rather than attempt to understand an opposing view for the sake of reasonable discussion.

Subject: RE: BS: Bigots
From: John P
Date: 08 Sep 11 - 11:10 PM

The reason I call Akenaton and GfS bigots is NOT because they don't like the "gay lifestyle". It's because they argue vehemently against giving normal civil rights to all gay people, based on their dislike of the lifestyle of SOME gay people. They can hold any damn opinion they like, but support of legal discrimination against a group of citizens is pretty much the definition of bigotry.

It hasn't caused me to stop paying attention to what they say. If anyone cares to go back and read all those long threads, they will find that lots of people begged them to follow their judgment with any reasonableness at all. We followed every path of their statements to the logical end and never got any response to any of it. They just kept repeating that it was somehow going to destroy society if gay folks were treated like the rest of us. This is why I call them bigots. Unreasoning hatred of a group of people and an attempt to curtail their civil rights.

I know that calling someone a bigot does no good whatsoever when it comes to helping them understand that they are spreading their manure on other people. It does, however, help to stigmatize them. I think white supremists, gay-bashers, and religious fanatics ought to be stigmatized as soon as they try to impose their wills on anyone else. Actually, I think they ought to be stigmatized as soon as they open their fool mouths. They can hardly claim to be ignorant of what they are saying.

the Length, I also don't like the extreme displays that take place at Gay Rights parades. I can well understand why you don't. Do you think gay people in general should enjoy the same civil rights as the rest of us?

Subject: RE: BS: Bigots
From: Smokey.
Date: 09 Sep 11 - 12:08 AM

Calling someone a bigot does no good whatsoever, full stop (or 'period'). It's a statement of opinion which isn't going to change anyone's mind. It's no more than name-calling, regardless of who may or may not believe it to be true.

Subject: RE: BS: Bigots
From: Little Hawk
Date: 09 Sep 11 - 02:16 AM

Yes, but it may hurt their feelings, wound them, terrorize them into silence or if nothing else at least make the namecaller himself feel gloriously superior to the one he has just called "bigot"...thus it promises juicy emotional dividends and psychological satisfaction of a sort to the one hurling the ephithet, doesn't it?

Hence its great popularity and appeal as a way of presumeably reducing the stature of the targeted person...and hopefully even damning them for all time.

The Inquisition used to do stuff like that too, they gloried in it, but they had the temporal power to follow it up with physical torture and a variety of grisly forms of execution. Good thing they aren't still in power to do that now, isn't it?

Subject: RE: BS: Bigots
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 09 Sep 11 - 04:29 AM

"Calling someone a bigot does no good whatsoever, "
Yes it does - it draws attention to their bigotry and helps build opposition to the effects it has on its intended victims - you have your example in pre-war Germany, where many ignored the systematic attacks on the Jews - the result was inevitable.

"It is necessery only for a good man to do nothing for evil to triumph"
Edmund Burke

Calling somebody a bigot without backing it up with argument is a fairly sterile exercise, but even argument can have no effect on some people - I suggest that if anybody has any doubt of this, read through either the 'Dale Farm evictions', or the earlier 'Muslim prejudice' threads - baoth contain racism and bigotry in the extreme. Plenty of other examples on this forum, but these should keep you occupied.
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Bigots
From: Ironmule
Date: 09 Sep 11 - 04:51 AM

When we moved to Florida in '57 I was old enough to understand a little more than WesleyS, but far too naive and ignorant to see things as I do now at the age of 65. (perhaps I should say I'm his older brother??")

I used to drink from those "colored" water fountains, more from a sense that those who would post a sign like that were idiots than any other motivation. I was 12yrs old and hadn't any grasp of the significance of the unfolding civil rights movement and the morality of those who would oppress and those who would liberate.

I can understand someone feeling that strangers are more dangerous than a family group. "Us versus them" has been a non trivial way of seeing things for most of our evolution from apes to man.

I think the difference between a bigot and anyone else, is that a bigot wants to harm the "other" rather than be neutral or freindly.

I don't want to harm anyone until you have proven yourself to be a direct threat to me and mine. If your skin is alabaster or green with pink poka-dots, I couldn't care less. I simply want innocents to live a good life and bad guys to be frustrated. To quote a guy who had some bad luck in this regard, "Why can't we all get along?"

Subject: RE: BS: Bigots
From: Big Al Whittle
Date: 09 Sep 11 - 07:32 AM

So what are the implications of what you think Jim?

There are certain people who are bigots and by virtue of that ....? they should not be listened to, their point of view is invalid, they should be be outed as a disgrace to humanity...

If the situaton is as you say, what do you suggest?

Subject: RE: BS: Bigots
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 09 Sep 11 - 07:54 AM

Jim Carroll,
"Describing all male Pakistanis as "culturally inclined to paedophelia" is plain and simple racism."

No-one described them thus Jim.
I repeatedly corrected you about this.
There was no suggestion of paedophilia. Minors were said to be targeted for pimping because the were easier meat.
It was suggested that this demographic was over-represented in this abuse because of tensions related to unhappy arranged cousin marriages and absence of any courtship practices.
This suggestion came not from me, but from national figures with extensive knowledge and experience, who in most cases were well known anti-racists from within that community.

Subject: RE: BS: Bigots
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 09 Sep 11 - 07:58 AM

Jim Carroll.
"or the earlier 'Muslim prejudice' threads - baoth contain racism and bigotry in the extreme"

May I remind you Jim that when I and MtheGm asked you for examples, you failed to find any!

Subject: RE: BS: Bigots
From: Don(Wyziwyg)T
Date: 09 Sep 11 - 07:58 AM

""There are certain people who are bigots and by virtue of that ....? they should not be listened to, their point of view is invalid, they should be be outed as a disgrace to humanity...""

I'd say that's a distortion of what Jim said, Al, as he was quite specific in his references to those posters.

Would you say that anybody has the right openly to slander a whole ethnic grouping, sexual orientation, or other such entity, and not be called to account for it?

Nobody is suggesting that bigots be ignored or ostracised in all areas of communication, but surely attention must be drawn to the fact that the majority of the community finds their ideas and feelings on certain subjects to be inappropriate, unacceptable and offensive to put it mildly.

And Mudcat, like it or not, is such a community.

Don T.

Subject: RE: BS: Bigots
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 09 Sep 11 - 08:24 AM

" to slander a whole ethnic grouping,"

Who has ever done that Don?

Subject: RE: BS: Bigots
From: akenaton
Date: 09 Sep 11 - 08:48 AM

Our resident heterosexual, homosexual activist Mr John Peekstok,and to a lesser extent Jim, are both liars.
I am slightly bigotted against liars as they tend to kill reasonable discussion.
They accuse Keith A of being an "anti Pakistani bigot" and myself and Sanity of being an "anti gay bigots".....this is simply a way of trashing our arguments on the issues involved. How can any sane person be "anti gay", or "anti Pakistani"?   the contention is laughable. My stance has always been against the promotion of homosexuality in society as being a safe healthy and normal lifestyle. This promotion is being carried out not by homosexuals, but by successive "liberal" governments aided by the media and people like Mr Peekstok who would like us to believe they speak for the majority of our society. They do not, but have succeeded in bullying and intimidating many into silence.....this is the action of Fascists.
I have spent a long time on this forum constructing an argument to support my case, complete with health statistics for hiv/aids amongst male homosexuals which are horrific and worsening year by year.
The crowning idiocy of the "liberal" homosexual agenda has been revealed in the UK this week, with the announcement that male homosexuals are no longer to be banned from contributing to national blood bank......on grounds of equality!
This on top of the decision to redefine Christian marriage to accomodate the same sexual minority.

It is surely a form of madness in this society of ours.
No wonder we see it crumbling around us.

Subject: RE: BS: Bigots
From: Big Al Whittle
Date: 09 Sep 11 - 09:02 AM

Well of course Hitler maligned a whole group of people. People do. malign other groups.

I do think that one reason bigots get elected so often though is that they exploit reasonable fears that the population have, and fears that for which there are no simplistic answers, that the politicians can trot out as 'the answer'.

Case in point. Cameron today announces that he instituting a policy of 'zero tolerance' for schools that fail. Does any sane person think that Cameron cares more about this issue than teachers who have worked their entire lives in the deprived areas of our cities?

The answers why the schools are failing are many and varied and the reasons would not fit into a soundbyte. You can't help thinking perhaps he should have gone the whole hog and blamed it on the gypsies and homosexuals.

Subject: RE: BS: Bigots
From: GUEST,The Length
Date: 09 Sep 11 - 09:18 AM

akenaton, you are correct in what you say. The last two posts by Jim Carroll have been a bit off the wall. Keith A. seems to have put his case across well.

Maybe there should be a thread about trouble makers and liars. This guy Jim is simply flaming. He is trail blazing you guys.

Anyway, be care, It would appear he knows a few Irish travellers, hung like donkeys who like to lift shirttails.

Subject: RE: BS: Bigots
From: Big Al Whittle
Date: 09 Sep 11 - 09:45 AM

Why does it bother you that Christyian homosexuals want to get married?

Be careful of crowning idiots. there are always new challengers for the throne.

Subject: RE: BS: Bigots
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 09 Sep 11 - 10:24 AM

akenaton: "........They accuse Keith A of being an "anti Pakistani bigot" and myself and Sanity of being an "anti gay bigots"....."

HELLO AKE!!!....Jeez, I was repeatedly called a 'bigot' just for saying, that homosexuality was NOT genetic, nor has any proof found that it was, and that it was behavioral! I'm sure you remember those legendary threads!! Still, to this day, which has now been over a year and a half, there still is no defining evidence that it has anything to do with genes!...but, at least a couple of my antagonists, on here has softened their points of contention..(also due to the fact that one of them has been shredded repeatedly on the subject....to which he still holds a grudge).

But it is nice to cross paths with you again!!

Warmest Regards.....you left wing-nut!..(wink!)

GfS

Subject: RE: BS: Bigots
From: GUEST,999
Date: 09 Sep 11 - 10:24 AM

"I don't know what you mean by 'glory,' " Alice said.
    Humpty Dumpty smiled contemptuously. "Of course you don't—till I tell you. I meant 'there's a nice knock-down argument for you!' "
    "But 'glory' doesn't mean 'a nice knock-down argument'," Alice objected.
    "When I use a word," Humpty Dumpty said, in rather a scornful tone, "it means just what I choose it to mean—neither more nor less."
    "The question is," said Alice, "whether you can make words mean so many different things."
    "The question is," said Humpty Dumpty, "which is to be master      that's all."
    Alice was too much puzzled to say anything, so after a minute Humpty Dumpty began again. "They've a temper, some of them—particularly verbs, they're the proudest—adjectives you can do anything with, but not verbs—however, I can manage the whole lot! Impenetrability! That's what I say!"

Subject: RE: BS: Bigots
From: akenaton
Date: 09 Sep 11 - 10:51 AM

It doesn't bother me personally Al, but it sure bothers lots of Christians who have always believed that marriage, procreation and family structure were bound together and between man and woman.

The problem with redefining such matters is where do you stop? Before long the institution becomes worthless.

A couple of weeks ago, I read a "rights activist" comment that the issue was not about rights, as rights could be granted through civil union.

It was about the word. About being the same as everybody else, but they are not the same as everybody else, they are a sexual minority whose behaviour carries with it massive rates of a very serious, potentially fatal disease......I do not know why this is so, but until we do know, this type of sexual behaviour should not be promoted as "safe, healthy and normal"

Just to repeat from another thread, unaids latest figures for the UK show that male homosexuals account for 71% of new hiv infections.
CDC in the US state that 1 in 5 male homosexuals carry the hiv virus.
These figures are being concealed from the general public in the UK as all demographics are being lumped together showing that hiv rates are falling...whilst in reality, the infection rates amonst male homosexuals are rising rapidly.

If these rates were transferred to any other demographic, like white girls, drug users, or asian men there would be immediate demands for a medical inquiry, but rather than cast doubt on the all powerful "liberal equality agenda" we continue to allow young men to die in their thousands.

Subject: RE: BS: Bigots
From: akenaton
Date: 09 Sep 11 - 11:00 AM

Sorry to cross post Bruce, but I do understand your meaning
So good to see you!
Hi Sanity! keep fightin for the truth.....I love this place!

Subject: RE: BS: Bigots
From: GUEST,pete from seven stars link
Date: 09 Sep 11 - 12:10 PM

just to clarify-
a homosexual has to indicate that he has not had anal/oral sex with another man for at least 6 months or a year[not sure which]under the new rules re giving blood.
seems to indicate the dangers of the "gay" lifestyle being recognized by govt, as also akeneton contends.
such recognition hardly makes either bigotted-certainly not cameron who seems pretty PC on "gay rights"

i think true bigotry is manifest by using verbal gutrot instead of reasoned argument and though a generalization, those lacking the latter often resort to the namecalling.
argument weak-shout like blazes!.