BS: A Sad Day in North Carolina

Subject: RE: BS: A Sad Day in North Carolina
From: Janie
Date: 19 May 12 - 09:40 PM

The NAACP appears to have listened, and thought through this issue.

We have and will oppose efforts to codify discrimination into law.

Subject: RE: BS: A Sad Day in North Carolina
From: Amos
Date: 17 May 12 - 10:03 AM

The surveys of opinion I have seen are predominantly in favor of tolerance.


A

Subject: RE: BS: A Sad Day in North Carolina
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 17 May 12 - 01:45 AM

Don: "Ake, how do you know that the "silent majority" is opposed to same-sex marriage when they are silent?"

Because they are answering polls, now!

GfS

Subject: RE: BS: A Sad Day in North Carolina
From: Bobert
Date: 16 May 12 - 08:28 PM

The United Sates is 1 Supreme Court justice short of striking down all these oppressive laws... Just one!!!

Vote Obama and restore civil rights to everyone...

B~

Subject: RE: BS: A Sad Day in North Carolina
From: Don Firth
Date: 16 May 12 - 08:08 PM

Yes.

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: A Sad Day in North Carolina
From: akenaton
Date: 16 May 12 - 07:27 PM

Oh?

Subject: RE: BS: A Sad Day in North Carolina
From: Don Firth
Date: 16 May 12 - 06:59 PM

But, Ake, perhaps it was the right thing to do.

Politicians sometimes do that, you know. Do something they really should do, even if it isn't necessarily politically expedient.

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: A Sad Day in North Carolina
From: Amos
Date: 16 May 12 - 04:51 PM

You sure love them sweeping generalizations, huh, Ake?

Confusing the issues of civil rights with individual health issues is a great way to go blind and grow hair on your palms, ya know...

May you have strapping sons who all discover they are gay.



A

Subject: RE: BS: A Sad Day in North Carolina
From: akenaton
Date: 16 May 12 - 03:26 PM

I think President Obama has, in this instance, been very badly advised.

The trouble with the "liberal" left is that they ALWAYS believe their own propaganda.

Subject: RE: BS: A Sad Day in North Carolina
From: Bobert
Date: 16 May 12 - 03:05 PM

Poll numbers will bounce between now and November in 5 to 8 point swings... They mean nothing...

B~

Subject: RE: BS: A Sad Day in North Carolina
From: Don Firth
Date: 16 May 12 - 02:32 PM

Ake, how do you know that the "silent majority" is opposed to same-sex marriage when they are silent?

That obviously reflects your prejudices.

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: A Sad Day in North Carolina
From: akenaton
Date: 16 May 12 - 02:21 PM

In todays Times the latest poll from "independent" US voters shows President Obama's popularity falling by 5% since his statement on "Gay Marriage".....A great political mistake from Mr O I think..... to underestimate the silent majority.

Subject: RE: BS: A Sad Day in North Carolina
From: Bobert
Date: 16 May 12 - 01:02 PM

Lots of pro-rights letters in the Charlotte Observer, as well...

The Republican statehouse should have had this as part of the general election and not a primary where there was more interest on the Republican side...

B~

Subject: RE: BS: A Sad Day in North Carolina
From: akenaton
Date: 16 May 12 - 10:52 AM

Unfortunately we do not always evolve in a manner beneficial to society.
Evolution these days is heavily influenced by factors like the Entertainment Media in which as we all know there is a massive over-representation of homosexuals.    No??? Just turn on your TV any hour of the day or night and absorb the propaganda.

Perhaps US TV is not so badly affected.

Subject: RE: BS: A Sad Day in North Carolina
From: saulgoldie
Date: 16 May 12 - 09:48 AM

So let's hear it for "evolution?"

Saul

Subject: RE: BS: A Sad Day in North Carolina
From: John P
Date: 16 May 12 - 09:02 AM

I agree Janie. I've had a sense that the tide is turning. More and more people are "evolving".

Speaking of which, one of my current favorite quotes was from last year sometime when columnist Leonard Pitts ending a column about civil rights by urging President Obama to "evolve faster." I'm glad the president finally evolved to the point of supporting equal rights for all Americans.

Subject: RE: BS: A Sad Day in North Carolina
From: Janie
Date: 15 May 12 - 11:22 PM

I started this thread expressing sadness. Now I have a different, more hopeful perspective - and fwiw, not from the many posts to this thread that display the usual ineffective bickering and finger pointing by the usual suspects on either side of the political spectrum who are mostly concerned with personally belittling one another, playing the martyr, one upsmanship, or otherwise getting in the last accusatory word or pointed finger, which is not to say I do not appreciate or learn from the thoughtful, rational posts and links that also have been made.

As I continue to follow the news reports and editorials within North Carolina I comprehend that a sea change is occurring that I think likely is reflective of the nation. The good news is there is real discussion and real thinking about this issue that is likely to lead to greater recognition among many that this is a human rights issue. This discussion is broader and involves more of the population than likely would be occurring at this point in time without this amendment, and without it's passage. This North Carolina amendment is not a "last gasp" but I think it is nearly so, and will have the effect of raising the consciousness of people within the State and around the nation. There will, of course, continue to be the idiotic sniping and finger pointing among our citizenry that is reflected on this thread, but clearly the times they are a changing, and the day is coming - not soon enough, but clearly now sooner rather than later, when a vast majority of people will look back and be appalled at the ruckus. Rather like Jim Crow in that while racism is still alive and well, the number of people, including rather obvious racists to whom separate drinking fountains still make some kind of sick sense are a bonafide rarity.


I don't think I am being overly optimistic in thinking along these lines. I guess time will tell.

Subject: RE: BS: A Sad Day in North Carolina
From: saulgoldie
Date: 15 May 12 - 07:28 PM

My point was that "they" like to point to something that "they" think of as the one and only biblical notion of marriage as "one man and one woman," whereas it really mentions several versions, most of which are what civilized people would think of as horrific, or at least, somewhat weird.

And as the great Willie said (and I'm paraphrasing), "The devil can cite scripture for his own purposes." So basically, this whole notion of "biblical" marriage that is so often mentioned is a fraud.

Saul

Subject: RE: BS: A Sad Day in North Carolina
From: akenaton
Date: 15 May 12 - 05:40 PM

My my...we're really scraping the barrel now!

Subject: RE: BS: A Sad Day in North Carolina
From: GUEST,Eliza
Date: 15 May 12 - 05:26 PM

Having viewed the link about the Bible, I note with interest that a victim of rape is obliged to marry her attacker. How delightful. I think we can treat Biblical condemnation of gay marriage with the same reaction, ie disgust.

Subject: RE: BS: A Sad Day in North Carolina
From: Bobert
Date: 15 May 12 - 05:15 PM

Very interesting, saul...

Tell ya'll what... If you have to use a Bible quote to justify your position then...

a. there is a 99.9% chance that somewhere else in the Bible there is something that contradicts that position and...

b. you can't come up with any non-Biblical justifications for that position

BTW, I am Christian and know my way around the Bible...

B~

Subject: RE: BS: A Sad Day in North Carolina
From: saulgoldie
Date: 15 May 12 - 04:26 PM

Many folks quickly point to "the Bible" for their "defense of marriage." Well, this is what "the Bible" has to say about "acceptable" marriage:

Marriage in the Bible


Saul

Subject: RE: BS: A Sad Day in North Carolina
From: Ebbie
Date: 15 May 12 - 03:30 PM

It was written by and mailed from a Eugene DeGaudio through Townhall Spotlight [e-mail]

Subject: RE: BS: A Sad Day in North Carolina
From: Ebbie
Date: 15 May 12 - 02:57 PM

Hmmm. I didn't get the URL for this email. If you want to check it out, though, it is from a Professor Baudsomething or other. I'll look again later when I have time.

"You see, the Homosexual Classrooms Act contains a laundry list of anti-family provisions that will:
*** Require schools to teach appalling homosexual acts so "homosexual students" don't feel "singled out" during already explicit sex-ed classes;
*** Spin impressionable students in a whirlwind of sexual confusion and misinformation, even peer pressure to "experiment" with the homosexual "lifestyle;"
*** Exempt homosexual students from punishment for propositioning, harassing, or even sexually assaulting their classmates, as part of their specially-protected right to "freedom of self-expression;"
*** Force private and even religious schools to teach a pro-homosexual curriculum and purge any reference to religion if a student claims it creates a "hostile learning environment" for homosexual students."

Subject: RE: BS: A Sad Day in North Carolina
From: frogprince
Date: 14 May 12 - 04:51 PM

Possibly, Wesley; but I would be more apt to think that he is simply aware that that is the phrasing that the "protection of marriage" people have been pushing for at least a few years now.

Subject: RE: BS: A Sad Day in North Carolina
From: Wesley S
Date: 14 May 12 - 11:16 AM

I noticed that when describing marriage that Mitt Romney described it not as between "a" man and "a" woman - but as between "one" man and "one" woman. To distance himself from polygamy perhaps?

Subject: RE: BS: A Sad Day in North Carolina
From: John P
Date: 14 May 12 - 10:26 AM

I haven't seen anyone stealing the word "marriage" except those who want to make it mean only their own limited definition. The rest of us are perfectly willing to share the word.

Subject: RE: BS: A Sad Day in North Carolina
From: Stu
Date: 14 May 12 - 06:20 AM

"my stance on this issue is on health"

OK. Better stop the rutting millions out every Friday and Saturday night too then.


"Reserve the smelling salts for your "liberal" friends who are so agitated by the "right" of homosexuals to purloin the word marriage"

Huh? I thought this was a health issue. If health is all you're worried about why are you suggesting the word 'marriage' is being purloined? Even then that seems odd . . . surely 'marriage' is more than a word, more a commitment to another human being whom you love deeply. In which case, whether it's same-sex or mixed-sex marriage, why would that matter as it's between two people and it's only a sham when they don't love each other.

Subject: RE: BS: A Sad Day in North Carolina
From: akenaton
Date: 14 May 12 - 03:51 AM

Frogprince.....my stance on this issue is on health, but I do understand the concerns of those who feel that re-definition would have a negative effect on the the family structure.

The religious aspect does not bother me in the least, but it does concern a huge body of religious people wordwide, who don't share my atheistic views.

Reserve the smelling salts for your "liberal" friends who are so agitated by the "right" of homosexuals to purloin the word marriage, yet support wholeheartedly an economic system which has inequality at its black heart.

The battle for homosexual rights is a sham, a sop to the conscience of those too cowardly to bring real equality to all.

Subject: RE: BS: A Sad Day in North Carolina
From: frogprince
Date: 13 May 12 - 11:21 PM

Somebody bring the smelling salts for Ake and Gfs!!   : )

Subject: RE: BS: A Sad Day in North Carolina
From: Wesley S
Date: 13 May 12 - 03:22 PM

Interesting article:

Full story here

When Same-Sex Marriage Was a Christian Rite

Contrary to myth, Christianity's concept of marriage has not been set in stone since the days of Christ, but has constantly evolved as a concept and ritual. Prof. John Boswell, the late Chairman of Yale University's history department, discovered that in addition to heterosexual marriage ceremonies in ancient Christian church liturgical documents, there were also ceremonies called the "Office of Same-Sex Union" (10th and 11th century), and the "Order for Uniting Two Men" (11th and 12th century).

These church rites had all the symbols of a heterosexual marriage: the whole community gathered in a church, a blessing of the couple before the altar was conducted with their right hands joined, holy vows were exchanged, a priest officiatied in the taking of the Eucharist and a wedding feast for the guests was celebrated afterwards. These elements all appear in contemporary illustrations of the holy union of the Byzantine Warrior-Emperor, Basil the First (867-886 CE) and his companion John.


A Kiev art museum contains a curious icon from St. Catherine's Monastery on Mt. Sinai in Israel. It shows two robed Christian saints. Between them is a traditional Roman 'pronubus' (a best man), overseeing a wedding. The pronubus is Christ. The married couple are both men.

Is the icon suggesting that a gay "wedding" is being sanctified by Christ himself? The idea seems shocking. But the full answer comes from other early Christian sources about the two men featured in the icon, St. Sergius and St. Bacchus, two Roman soldiers who were Christian martyrs. These two officers in the Roman army incurred the anger of Emperor Maximian when they were exposed as 'secret Christians' by refusing to enter a pagan temple. Both were sent to Syria circa 303 CE where Bacchus is thought to have died while being flogged. Sergius survived torture but was later beheaded. Legend says that Bacchus appeared to the dying Sergius as an angel, telling him to be brave because they would soon be reunited in heaven.

While the pairing of saints, particularly in the early Christian church, was not unusual, the association of these two men was regarded as particularly intimate. Severus, the Patriarch of Antioch (AD 512 - 518) explained that, "we should not separate in speech they [Sergius and Bacchus] who were joined in life". This is not a case of simple "adelphopoiia." In the definitive 10th century account of their lives, St. Sergius is openly celebrated as the "sweet companion and lover" of St. Bacchus. Sergius and Bacchus's close relationship has led many modern scholars to believe they were lovers. But the most compelling evidence for this view is that the oldest text of their martyrology, written in New Testament Greek describes them as "erastai," or "lovers". In other words, they were a male homosexual couple. Their orientation and relationship was not only acknowledged, but it was fully accepted and celebrated by the early Christian church, which was far more tolerant than it is today.



Such same gender Christian sanctified unions also took place in Ireland in the late 12thand/ early 13th century, as the chronicler Gerald of Wales ('Geraldus Cambrensis') recorded.

Same-sex unions in pre-modern Europe list in great detail some same gender ceremonies found in ancient church liturgical documents. One Greek 13th century rite, "Order for Solemn Same-Sex Union", invoked St. Serge and St. Bacchus, and called on God to "vouchsafe unto these, Thy servants [N and N], the grace to love one another and to abide without hate and not be the cause of scandal all the days of their lives, with the help of the Holy Mother of God, and all Thy saints". The ceremony concludes: "And they shall kiss the Holy Gospel and each other, and it shall be concluded".

Another 14th century Serbian Slavonic "Office of the Same Sex Union", uniting two men or two women, had the couple lay their right hands on the Gospel while having a crucifix placed in their left hands. After kissing the Gospel, the couple were then required to kiss each other, after which the priest, having raised up the Eucharist, would give them both communion.

Records of Christian same sex unions have been discovered in such diverse archives as those in the Vatican, in St. Petersburg, in Paris, in Istanbul and in the Sinai, covering a thousand-years from the 8th to the 18th century.

The Dominican missionary and Prior, Jacques Goar (1601-1653), includes such ceremonies in a printed collection of Greek Orthodox prayer books, "Euchologion Sive Rituale Graecorum Complectens Ritus Et Ordines Divinae Liturgiae" (Paris, 1667).

While homosexuality was technically illegal from late Roman times, homophobic writings didn't appear in Western Europe until the late 14th century. Even then, church-consecrated same sex unions continued to take place.

At St. John Lateran in Rome (traditionally the Pope's parish church) in 1578, as many as thirteen same-gender couples were joined during a high Mass and with the cooperation of the Vatican clergy, "taking communion together, using the same nuptial Scripture, after which they slept and ate together" according to a contemporary report. Another woman to woman union is recorded in Dalmatia in the 18th century.

Prof. Boswell's academic study is so well researched and documented that it poses fundamental questions for both modern church leaders and heterosexual Christians about their own modern attitudes towards homosexuality.

For the Church to ignore the evidence in its own archives would be cowardly and deceptive. The evidence convincingly shows that what the modern church claims has always been its unchanging attitude towards homosexuality is, in fact, nothing of the sort.

It proves that for the last two millennia, in parish churches and cathedrals throughout Christendom, from Ireland to Istanbul and even in the heart of Rome itself, homosexual relationships were accepted as valid expressions of a God-given love and committment to another person, a love that could be celebrated, honored and blessed, through the Eucharist in the name of, and in the presence of, Jesus Christ.

Subject: RE: BS: A Sad Day in North Carolina
From: gnu
Date: 13 May 12 - 03:18 PM

Thanks for the explanations, Bobert... I am on board now.

Subject: RE: BS: A Sad Day in North Carolina
From: Stilly River Sage
Date: 13 May 12 - 12:15 PM

Bobert got it right.

And any of you who waste your time arguing with Gust from inSanity are doing just that - wasting your time. He/she has some pretentions to being a musician, and should stick to that. In politics and social issues he is clueless. He wrote:

I'd hate to see some of you embarrassing yourselves, in such grand style....but then, some of you deserve to be!...SAUL!

Now that is a classic "pot calling the kettle black," except that Saul made perfect sense and Gust RARELY makes any sense. He's just here to argue, and if you keep arguing with this baby troll, he'll keep it up.

SRS

Subject: RE: BS: A Sad Day in North Carolina
From: John P
Date: 13 May 12 - 12:14 PM

GfS, try again, in English this time. Your last post doesn't make any sense. Do you think everyone should have the same civil rights or not? A simple yes or no will suffice.

You do say "I'm not denying anybody anything". Does that mean that you are now in support of gay marriage? If not, what does it mean?

It's really hard to jam with someone who doesn't tune their instrument, doesn't know the chords, can't keep time, and shouts at people if they don't play the tune they want to play. Ambiguity stalks your posts, sheltered by syntactical confusion and excessive choler. Language literacy and clarity of expression in a conversation is the same as musical skill in a jam session or recording project. You are extremely sub-par, and it makes you exactly as welcome as a really bad musician would be if you were trying to play music. It also means you often have to repeat yourself using different words in order to be understood. Do you think everyone should have the same civil rights or not?

The offer of a real debate on the subject stands.

Subject: RE: BS: A Sad Day in North Carolina
From: Bobert
Date: 13 May 12 - 11:52 AM

Fucking isn't the issue...

Getting fucked over is...

B~

Subject: RE: BS: A Sad Day in North Carolina
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 13 May 12 - 09:40 AM

John p: "GfS, please defend the concept that denying civil rights to people is affording them equal treatment."

I'm not denying anybody anything...except credence for nonsensical false premises. People can do and fuck anything they want....what they want to call it, is just a matter of interpretation of gibberish!

GfS

Subject: RE: BS: A Sad Day in North Carolina
From: John P
Date: 13 May 12 - 02:57 AM

Did it ever occur to you, that disagreeing with the POLITICAL INTERPRETATION of homosexuality

And what, pray tell, is the political interpretation of homosexuality?

Saul said: You either believe that all humans are entitled to fair and equal treatment, or you don't. If you don't then you are obligated to embrace the fact that you think some humans are somehow sub-human.

And GfS has taken two pot shots at him so far for doing so.

So, GfS, please defend the concept that denying civil rights to people is affording them equal treatment. Please tell us explicitly why you think Saul was out to lunch for saying that it's bad to discriminate against minority groups. Come on, get specific. So far you're just farting. Bumper sticker slogans are easy. And lazy. And ignorant.

My offer of a real debate on the subject stands. If you have the balls.

Subject: RE: BS: A Sad Day in North Carolina
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 13 May 12 - 12:55 AM

Bobert: "I'm not part of the bashers, GfinS, so that leaves me out of the epidemic.."

Did it ever occur to you, that disagreeing with the POLITICAL INTERPRETATION of homosexuality, has NOTHING to do with 'hating' them, or being a 'basher'?????...or is that beyond your scope of understanding??

Bobert: "Meanwhile they go out and spend most of of their waking hours with folks of the same gender (by choice)..."

'Choice'....ahh, the word that partisan politicos despise!...

Bobert: "I think my hypothesis is going over everyone's heads here.."

Yeah, "I'm not crazy..it's the rest of the world"!!

GfS

Subject: RE: BS: A Sad Day in North Carolina
From: Bobert
Date: 12 May 12 - 10:41 PM

BTW, the studies of polymorphous perverse guilt are interesting... Lotta folks out there with lot's of "baggage" from adolescent behaviors and rather than live up to them these folks go 180 degrees the other way... And guess who suffers???

Yup, gay people...

I know that I am way out in front of this but I had the pleasure of having many in depth discussions on this and other mental health issues with Dr. Paul Baxter in the 70s.... So what I am throwing out is way beyond folks thinkin'...

Ya'll gonna have to Google this up and do some reading... I'm not going to get into the details here... I could... But I'm not...

B~

Subject: RE: BS: A Sad Day in North Carolina
From: Bobert
Date: 12 May 12 - 07:51 PM

I'm not part of the bashers, GfinS, so that leaves me out of the epidemic...

Hey, gn-ze... I am in no way, shape or form talking right or wrongness... That is 100% not me...

I have thrown out a hypothesis that there are alot of folks out there bashing homosexuals who may very well be latent homosexuals who have been told "Hey, that shit ain't right" and rather than come out they have to pretend to hate gay people...

Meanwhile they go out and spend most of of their waking hours with folks of the same gender (by choice)...

I think my hypothesis is going over everyone's heads here...

Read closer...

B~

Subject: RE: BS: A Sad Day in North Carolina
From: gnu
Date: 12 May 12 - 07:34 PM

Bobert... careful. Whether homosexuality is (not) wrong or right, insinuation could close this thread as it may offend some and could be considered a "personal" thing. You know, breaking the only rule at the Mudcat? Ya know eh?

Now, this here latent homosexual thing. Are there any tests I could take to see if I am a latent on accounta I prefer the company of people I like to hang out with and most of them are male? And, by "hang out with", I mean have some beers, watch the game, tell lies and stories, play tunes and sing songs, go fishin an huntin (when I used to hunt), build shit, fix shit and whatever. If I was gonna hang it out, I wouldn't want any of them for company. Unless your tests could show otherwise... but my guess is nahhhh. Of course, I have never met Spaw in person so there is no definitive answer I guess.

Subject: RE: BS: A Sad Day in North Carolina
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 12 May 12 - 07:24 PM

Why??..because you might fall into the latter category??

GfS

Subject: RE: BS: A Sad Day in North Carolina
From: Bobert
Date: 12 May 12 - 06:49 PM

Me thinks there is a epidemic of polymorphous perverse guilt gripping the country and it is producing all this homophobic reaction by folks who are more than likely latent homosexuals themselves...

B~

Subject: RE: BS: A Sad Day in North Carolina
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 12 May 12 - 05:30 PM

...except deceivingly inaccurate!

GfS

Subject: RE: BS: A Sad Day in North Carolina
From: gnu
Date: 12 May 12 - 05:22 PM

Saul... well said. Bravo! Bravo!

Subject: RE: BS: A Sad Day in North Carolina
From: John P
Date: 12 May 12 - 05:00 PM

Name one.

Subject: RE: BS: A Sad Day in North Carolina
From: GUEST,Manuel
Date: 12 May 12 - 04:14 PM

Akenaton, I think you and I would agree that we live in a world infested with red herrings thrown out whenever convenient by evil and powerful people who will not have their lucrative pursuits interfered with by others, such as the State, and must therefore keep those others perpetually "otherwise occupied". There are too many people, many of them good and well-intentioned, in this world who will never learn to look for the bigger picture.

Subject: RE: BS: A Sad Day in North Carolina
From: John P
Date: 12 May 12 - 12:29 PM

I agree with Akenaton that assuming all or most anti-civil rights people are gays-in-denial is not a good idea. It's pretty much on the same level as saying all gay people are perverts. On the subject of civil rights, Akenaton is wrong-headed, illogical, unethical, selfish, and way too interested in other people's sex lives. But that's all we know about him from his posts. It's usually best to respond to what people actually say than to try to discern their inner emotional state and then speak to that too-often incorrect assumption. All I know about Akenaton's personal life, from what he's said over the years, is that he seems to love his wife very much.

Akenaton does have some serious problems in these debates: he draws fallacious conclusions (many of them!) from health data, and then won't (can't) support his conclusions when these fallacies are pointed out to him. He almost always rudely describes all opponents as brain-washed victims of a left-wing gay agenda, allowing him to dismiss anything they say. He has selected one minority group to irrationally deny civil rights to, and that can only be called bigotry. But none of these things make him a closet homo; he's just someone who is too stubborn to give up positions that don't make any sense and who isn't willing to take on, or at least respond to, new information on the subject.

Subject: RE: BS: A Sad Day in North Carolina
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 12 May 12 - 11:59 AM

Simply Simpletons Spouting.
Try getting an education on the subject OUTSIDE the political rhetoric.
I'd hate to see some of you embarrassing yourselves, in such grand style....but then, some of you deserve to be!...SAUL!


GfS

Subject: RE: BS: A Sad Day in North Carolina
From: saulgoldie
Date: 12 May 12 - 10:33 AM

Racism is racism is racism. Sexism is sexism is sexism. Homophobia is Homophobia is Homophobia. You either believe that all humans are entitled to fair and equal treatment, or you don't. If you don't then you are obligated to embrace the fact that you think some humans are somehow sub-human. Embrace it. Defend it. Own it. Or join the civilized people who are not sexists, bigots, or homophobes. We really are not evil. We are just intolerant of irrational hatred.

Saul