Who are the real bigots?

[Immanuel]

What makes him not a bigot? Is it that you agree with him? By labeling an entire group of people that disagree with his position as ignorant bigots he exposed his own bigotry, All I did was call him on it. If that makes me an ignorant bigot, than I am an ignorant bigot.

Ravi and Skull agree on something?

I don't know that I have ever seen anything that the two of them would agree on.

"That'll be the day", is now the song that I have stuck in my head.

Immie

They just agreed that they aren't the bigots because the only bigots are the ignorant rednecks that voted against same sex marriage.

I don't think that I would call that agreement, but if you want to, it is okay with me.

Immie

 

[Unkotare]

.

People can change their minds with new information .

People can literally and physically change their brains with new information. True story.

 

[Sunni Man]

People can literally and physically change their brains with new information. True story.

Then you are SOL unkotard.

Because you have to have one in the first place.

 

[bobcollum]

I came across this blog earlier today, and it got me to thinking about bigotry. I suggest that everyone who thinks that the bigots are the people that vote against same sex marriage are small minded read the whole thing.


Crumbs from the Communion Table • A challenge to both sides of the Amendment One debate.


Next time somebody wants to dismiss everyone who disagrees with their views about same sex marriage as a bigot they should remember what the word actually means and take a step to end the intolerance.


Bigot [big-uht] (noun) a person who is utterly intolerant of any differing creed, belief, or opinion.

So without the religious aspect of it they would have voted against a ban?

It sounds like you're trying to say that what they did could be seen, to the casual observer, as intolerant but it isn't really their fault, they're just acting and thinking as they were brought up to be.

I've had a discussion with a very religious family member about this topic, and I get that message from them, that they don't personally dislike homosexuals, but based on religious creed they don't condone homosexuality. They'll fight to keep marriage between a man and a woman, they would ideally like to change them back to heterosexuality, as many view it as an conscience decision.

In other words they're intolerant of them. Whether they truly mean it in a sinister sense or not doesn't really matter.

Anti-gay marriage advocate's issues are all in their head, their life would otherwise go unchanged if gay-marriage were legalized nationwide...again, besides the massive butt-hurt of it all.

The other side of the coin has a little more to do with real-world practicality.

What makes you think the religious aspect was the deciding factor?

What I am doing is pointing out that I happen to agree with the author of the blog that the people who voted for the ban are not automatically bigots. the issue is a complex one, and it takes time to sort out the implications of all the various issues. My personal journey took may months of thoughtful prayer. Dismissing people as ignorant bigots simply because they disagree with you on an issue is the way bigots approach a subject, and is only going to entrench their resistance to change, just like it would if I treated you like an ignorant bigot because your belief that religion is the main reason people oppose same sex marriage.

You okay? Sounds like you're upset.

That seemed to be the angle based on the excerpt provided...and the full blog entry didn't really go into other reasons, only that we should be aware that they truly believe they're doing the right thing and the reasons why they've come to their conclusions are complex...I get it.

What are some other reasons that people are against it that don't involve religion? I'm asking in all seriousness.

I like how you used the phrase "not automatically bigots", and I completely agree with that assessment, I'm sure they think it's the right thing to do. But it's almost like you yourself can see how it would come off as bigoted to others by saying it that way.

This thread is ironic when you think that you're blaming us for not understanding how you think about it, but also the claim to not being informed enough about it.

This guy took the trouble as a gay activist to point out to the world that the problem here is not that they are bigots who are unwilling to learn, the problem is that no one treats them with respect and sits down with them to show them that homosexuals are not part of a vast conspiracy to spread their lifestyle to everyone.

Some funky logic going on in this thread....

 

[Unkotare]

People can literally and physically change their brains with new information. True story.

Then you are SOL unkotard.

Because you have to have one in the first place.

Yeah, that means a lot coming from a fucking moron like you...

 

[Quantum Windbag]

So without the religious aspect of it they would have voted against a ban?

It sounds like you're trying to say that what they did could be seen, to the casual observer, as intolerant but it isn't really their fault, they're just acting and thinking as they were brought up to be.

I've had a discussion with a very religious family member about this topic, and I get that message from them, that they don't personally dislike homosexuals, but based on religious creed they don't condone homosexuality. They'll fight to keep marriage between a man and a woman, they would ideally like to change them back to heterosexuality, as many view it as an conscience decision.

In other words they're intolerant of them. Whether they truly mean it in a sinister sense or not doesn't really matter.

Anti-gay marriage advocate's issues are all in their head, their life would otherwise go unchanged if gay-marriage were legalized nationwide...again, besides the massive butt-hurt of it all.

The other side of the coin has a little more to do with real-world practicality.

What makes you think the religious aspect was the deciding factor?

What I am doing is pointing out that I happen to agree with the author of the blog that the people who voted for the ban are not automatically bigots. the issue is a complex one, and it takes time to sort out the implications of all the various issues. My personal journey took may months of thoughtful prayer. Dismissing people as ignorant bigots simply because they disagree with you on an issue is the way bigots approach a subject, and is only going to entrench their resistance to change, just like it would if I treated you like an ignorant bigot because your belief that religion is the main reason people oppose same sex marriage.

You okay? Sounds like you're upset.

That seemed to be the angle based on the excerpt provided...and the full blog entry didn't really go into other reasons, only that we should be aware that they truly believe they're doing the right thing and the reasons why they've come to their conclusions are complex...I get it.

What are some other reasons that people are against it that don't involve religion? I'm asking in all seriousness.

I like how you used the phrase "not automatically bigots", and I completely agree with that assessment, I'm sure they think it's the right thing to do. But it's almost like you yourself can see how it would come off as bigoted to others by saying it that way.

This thread is ironic when you think that you're blaming us for not understanding how you think about it, but also the claim to not being informed enough about it.

This guy took the trouble as a gay activist to point out to the world that the problem here is not that they are bigots who are unwilling to learn, the problem is that no one treats them with respect and sits down with them to show them that homosexuals are not part of a vast conspiracy to spread their lifestyle to everyone.

Some funky logic going on in this thread....

It is not bigoted to say it that way, it is offensive, there is a difference. I use language to provoke emotional responses, not because I am emotional. I am not blaming you for not understanding why I support same sex marriage, I am pointing out to you that making unfounded assumptions about people based on your lack of tolerance is bigotry.

Thanks for making my point.

 

[bobcollum]

What makes you think the religious aspect was the deciding factor?

What I am doing is pointing out that I happen to agree with the author of the blog that the people who voted for the ban are not automatically bigots. the issue is a complex one, and it takes time to sort out the implications of all the various issues. My personal journey took may months of thoughtful prayer. Dismissing people as ignorant bigots simply because they disagree with you on an issue is the way bigots approach a subject, and is only going to entrench their resistance to change, just like it would if I treated you like an ignorant bigot because your belief that religion is the main reason people oppose same sex marriage.

You okay? Sounds like you're upset.

That seemed to be the angle based on the excerpt provided...and the full blog entry didn't really go into other reasons, only that we should be aware that they truly believe they're doing the right thing and the reasons why they've come to their conclusions are complex...I get it.

What are some other reasons that people are against it that don't involve religion? I'm asking in all seriousness.

I like how you used the phrase "not automatically bigots", and I completely agree with that assessment, I'm sure they think it's the right thing to do. But it's almost like you yourself can see how it would come off as bigoted to others by saying it that way.

This thread is ironic when you think that you're blaming us for not understanding how you think about it, but also the claim to not being informed enough about it.

This guy took the trouble as a gay activist to point out to the world that the problem here is not that they are bigots who are unwilling to learn, the problem is that no one treats them with respect and sits down with them to show them that homosexuals are not part of a vast conspiracy to spread their lifestyle to everyone.

Some funky logic going on in this thread....

It is not bigoted to say it that way, it is offensive, there is a difference. I use language to provoke emotional responses, not because I am emotional. I am not blaming you for not understanding why I support same sex marriage, I am pointing out to you that making unfounded assumptions about people based on your lack of tolerance is bigotry.

Thanks for making my point.

Where were my "unfounded assumptions" based on a "lack of tolerance" that helped in "making your point"? I'm starting to wonder whether you're able to conceptualize the dual-perspective you think others should have.

Also please try to answer this question you seemed to miss:

What are some other reasons that people are against it that don't involve religion? I'm asking in all seriousness.

Seems like you're trolling here more than anything else...playing head games.

 

[koshergrl]

I'm not against it because of religion, except in the way I'm "against" all sin...covetnous, adultery, not honoring your mother and father....

I'm against it because it effectively removes the distinction for the best structure we have to raise kids in as something separate and special. I don't care if people are gay, but gay couples can't be married couples because they aren't a man and a woman. If they want to get married, they can. But marriage is the state of a man and a woman. Not two guys, two women, 3 women and a guy, or a kid and her doll.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

You okay? Sounds like you're upset.

That seemed to be the angle based on the excerpt provided...and the full blog entry didn't really go into other reasons, only that we should be aware that they truly believe they're doing the right thing and the reasons why they've come to their conclusions are complex...I get it.

What are some other reasons that people are against it that don't involve religion? I'm asking in all seriousness.

I like how you used the phrase "not automatically bigots", and I completely agree with that assessment, I'm sure they think it's the right thing to do. But it's almost like you yourself can see how it would come off as bigoted to others by saying it that way.

This thread is ironic when you think that you're blaming us for not understanding how you think about it, but also the claim to not being informed enough about it.



Some funky logic going on in this thread....

It is not bigoted to say it that way, it is offensive, there is a difference. I use language to provoke emotional responses, not because I am emotional. I am not blaming you for not understanding why I support same sex marriage, I am pointing out to you that making unfounded assumptions about people based on your lack of tolerance is bigotry.

Thanks for making my point.

Where were my "unfounded assumptions" based on a "lack of tolerance" that helped in "making your point"? I'm starting to wonder whether you're able to conceptualize the dual-perspective you think others should have.

Also please try to answer this question you seemed to miss:

What are some other reasons that people are against it that don't involve religion? I'm asking in all seriousness.

Seems like you're trolling here more than anything else...playing head games.

Your unfounded assumption was that I oppose same sex marriage, I don't. That assumption was based on your lack of tolerance, oi your idiocy. I chose to assume the least offensive option since you chose to interpret my offensiveness as intolerance,

The Prime Minister of Australia is openly atheist, lives with a man who she is not married to, and opposes same sex marriage, go ask her what her rational for it is. Don't be surprised if it doesn't have anything to do with religion. Why should I answer a question that, if you truly want an answer to, you can learn the answers for yourself?I only research questions for two reasons, 1) I am curious about the answer, or 2) I get paid for my time.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Many of the folks I’ve talked to honestly believe that people choose to be gay and could choose not to be. They think that giving legal recognition to same-sex partnerships would increase the number of people choosing to be gay, and would therefore encourage more people to turn away from God’s plan for their lives. When they talk about homosexuality as a “perversion,” they’re not trying to be bigoted or mean; they’re being quite literal about it.

As already correctly noted, it is not ‘bigotry’ to reject and be critical of the ignorance and animus exhibited above.

That they are bigots as a ‘good faith’ consequence of their religious dogma or ignorance of homosexuals in general neither mitigates nor justifies their bigotry. That they don’t ‘intend’ to be mean or bigoted is not an excuse, just as ignorance of the law is not an excuse.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Many of the folks I’ve talked to honestly believe that people choose to be gay and could choose not to be. They think that giving legal recognition to same-sex partnerships would increase the number of people choosing to be gay, and would therefore encourage more people to turn away from God’s plan for their lives. When they talk about homosexuality as a “perversion,” they’re not trying to be bigoted or mean; they’re being quite literal about it.

As already correctly noted, it is not ‘bigotry’ to reject and be critical of the ignorance and animus exhibited above.

That they are bigots as a ‘good faith’ consequence of their religious dogma or ignorance of homosexuals in general neither mitigates nor justifies their bigotry. That they don’t ‘intend’ to be mean or bigoted is not an excuse, just as ignorance of the law is not an excuse.

Learn to use the fracking quote button.

 

[Skull Pilot]

Are you equating gays with sexual predators?

Gays are always on the prowl looking for new victims; so yes, they are predators of the worse kind.

Kinda like Mohammed the pederast

 

[Ravi]

Many of the folks I’ve talked to honestly believe that people choose to be gay and could choose not to be. They think that giving legal recognition to same-sex partnerships would increase the number of people choosing to be gay, and would therefore encourage more people to turn away from God’s plan for their lives. When they talk about homosexuality as a “perversion,” they’re not trying to be bigoted or mean; they’re being quite literal about it.

As already correctly noted, it is not ‘bigotry’ to reject and be critical of the ignorance and animus exhibited above.

That they are bigots as a ‘good faith’ consequence of their religious dogma or ignorance of homosexuals in general neither mitigates nor justifies their bigotry. That they don’t ‘intend’ to be mean or bigoted is not an excuse, just as ignorance of the law is not an excuse.

Learn to use the fracking quote button.

Let me help you out. He was quoting from the link you posted in the OP. And his response to it was spot on.

 

[bobcollum]

It is not bigoted to say it that way, it is offensive, there is a difference. I use language to provoke emotional responses, not because I am emotional. I am not blaming you for not understanding why I support same sex marriage, I am pointing out to you that making unfounded assumptions about people based on your lack of tolerance is bigotry.

Thanks for making my point.

Where were my "unfounded assumptions" based on a "lack of tolerance" that helped in "making your point"? I'm starting to wonder whether you're able to conceptualize the dual-perspective you think others should have.

Also please try to answer this question you seemed to miss:

What are some other reasons that people are against it that don't involve religion? I'm asking in all seriousness.

Seems like you're trolling here more than anything else...playing head games.

Your unfounded assumption was that I oppose same sex marriage, I don't. That assumption was based on your lack of tolerance, oi your idiocy. I chose to assume the least offensive option since you chose to interpret my offensiveness as intolerance,

The Prime Minister of Australia is openly atheist, lives with a man who she is not married to, and opposes same sex marriage, go ask her what her rational for it is. Don't be surprised if it doesn't have anything to do with religion. Why should I answer a question that, if you truly want an answer to, you can learn the answers for yourself?I only research questions for two reasons, 1) I am curious about the answer, or 2) I get paid for my time.

So I was right about the head games.

All you've proved in this thread is that you might be worth disregarding in the future.

 

[koshergrl]

Where were my "unfounded assumptions" based on a "lack of tolerance" that helped in "making your point"? I'm starting to wonder whether you're able to conceptualize the dual-perspective you think others should have.

Also please try to answer this question you seemed to miss:



Seems like you're trolling here more than anything else...playing head games.

Your unfounded assumption was that I oppose same sex marriage, I don't. That assumption was based on your lack of tolerance, oi your idiocy. I chose to assume the least offensive option since you chose to interpret my offensiveness as intolerance,

The Prime Minister of Australia is openly atheist, lives with a man who she is not married to, and opposes same sex marriage, go ask her what her rational for it is. Don't be surprised if it doesn't have anything to do with religion. Why should I answer a question that, if you truly want an answer to, you can learn the answers for yourself?I only research questions for two reasons, 1) I am curious about the answer, or 2) I get paid for my time.

So I was right about the head games.

All you've proved in this thread is that you might be worth disregarding in the future.

Yes, because QW has consistently handed you ass to you all the way through it.
I'd ignore him completely if I were you. He shows you up for the intolerant, bigoted moron you are..

 

[bobcollum]

Your unfounded assumption was that I oppose same sex marriage, I don't. That assumption was based on your lack of tolerance, oi your idiocy. I chose to assume the least offensive option since you chose to interpret my offensiveness as intolerance,

The Prime Minister of Australia is openly atheist, lives with a man who she is not married to, and opposes same sex marriage, go ask her what her rational for it is. Don't be surprised if it doesn't have anything to do with religion. Why should I answer a question that, if you truly want an answer to, you can learn the answers for yourself?I only research questions for two reasons, 1) I am curious about the answer, or 2) I get paid for my time.

So I was right about the head games.

All you've proved in this thread is that you might be worth disregarding in the future.

Yes, because QW has consistently handed you ass to you all the way through it.
I'd ignore him completely if I were you. He shows you up for the intolerant, bigoted moron you are..

Oh KG coming from someone that thinks the Holocaust was the result of a homosexual conspiracy makes this all the more wacky.

I've tried to seriously have a discussion about it, yet all I get is assumptions and labels.

Tell me again how I lack perspective.

 

[drsmith1072]

Bigotry comes in all shapes and sizes. It comes from all political and sociological aspects.

Look in the mirror. You will probably see a bigot, because quite frankly, bigotry is human nature. Some can and do control it within them, but we all have our prejudices.

When I was reading this post by drsmith:

big·ot
One who is strongly partial to one's own group, religion, race, or politics and is intolerant of those who differ.
bigot - definition of bigot by the Free Online Dictionary, Thesaurus and Encyclopedia.

big·ot
: a person who is obstinately or intolerantly devoted to his or her own opinions and prejudices; especially: one who regards or treats the members of a group (as a racial or ethnic group) with hatred and intolerance
Bigot - Definition and More from the Free Merriam-Webster Dictionary

I guess it all depends upon what you choose as your definition of the word now doesn't it? It seems to me based on these other defitions that bigot applies quite well.

Now are you going "to dismiss everyone who disagrees with their (your) views" as you "suggest that everyone who thinks that the bigots are the people that vote against same sex marriage are small minded" as you stated in your post?

Funny how it's wrong to dismiss the "bigots" even as you dismiss others because they disagree with you.

I could not but help to think that the second definition he presented fits him to a "T". There are others on the board who are "obstinately or intolerantly devoted to his or her own opinions and prejudices", but he most definitely fits the definition IMHO.

Funny but you don't even know me so how can you make such a judgement without it being based on your own bias and intolerance of those who dare disagree with you?

drsmith, when was the last time your position "evolved"?

I have voted for a republicans in the past. Jack kingston comes to mind when I was stationed at HAAF in savannah, ga. I have civil conversations with civil conservatives all of the time. Maybe if the conservatives here were more civil things would change but most of what shows up here is the worst of the party.

Have you ever met a conservative you liked?

Yes I know and like several. Some are even engaged in politics. gasp!

Do you think there is any possibility that you might some day in your life?

Based on the fact that I already do your assumptions aare nothing but your own bias and intolerance as you try to frame someone based on your own false assumptions about liberals. Kind of bigoted on your part.

Are you going to dismiss everyone who disagrees with your views as you seem to have done in the past?

funny you mention that since that is exactly what the author of this thread did in the op.

I'm willing to admit that I may be wrong about you.

You are wrong but I doubt that you will have the integrity to admit it.

Are you willing to "evolve"?

Already have and still doing so today. however, based on your own posts you are not and never truly will.

Before you ask, I can tell you without any hesitation that my views have "evolved" in many areas. Abortion... I used to think that everyone who was pro-choice were thrilled to death at the thought of 4,000 babies dying every day. Now, I realize, the vast majority of them are just as sickened by that idea as I am, but don't want government to interfere in our lives.

HUH? The same rightwing that argues against big government never fails to use big government to try to enforce their religious and moral beliefs through legislation. Although I do agree that women do not want the government to tell them what to do with their body it's interesting that the right has no qualms with using big government to do just that.

Gay Marriage... used to believe that marriage was a union between one man and one woman (still do that) and that the homosexuals could go screw themselves if they thought they were going to destroy the sanctity of marriage. Now, I realize that homosexuals are discriminated in many ways, that they are entitled to the same rights and privileges as citizens of the United States as I am and that the government has no right being involved in the rites of the church.

WOW! As a true conservative that shouldn't have been a step in evolving it should have been ingrained in your system. However, many conservatives seem to have issue with hypocrisy on the big government front. It's bad when they disagree with it but they appear to have no problem with it when they desire such interference.

Therefore, the government needs to establish civil union laws and all "marriages" need to be established under civil union contracts. Churches should be free to marry whomever they want, but a "marriage" should not be given any special priviliges by the state. Those are two areas. There are others, but I am still not willing to claim that I am not a bigot. I have my prejudices just like everyone else.

That's a good step however as long as the right uses big government to legitmize discrimination and get praised for doing so I will reseve the right to call them out for their hypocrisy.

So, how, many of you are willing to be open minded and change your long held beliefs or are you willing to look yourself in the mirror and admit that you are a bigot?

Immie

Your entire argument is flawed based on your bias and intolerance of liberals. You have an idea that you believe is representative of all liberals and that applies to me when it doesn't. Thanks for the spin.

 

[drsmith1072]

Bigotry comes in all shapes and sizes. It comes from all political and sociological aspects.

Look in the mirror. You will probably see a bigot, because quite frankly, bigotry is human nature. Some can and do control it within them, but we all have our prejudices.

When I was reading this post by drsmith:

big·ot
One who is strongly partial to one's own group, religion, race, or politics and is intolerant of those who differ.
bigot - definition of bigot by the Free Online Dictionary, Thesaurus and Encyclopedia.

big·ot
: a person who is obstinately or intolerantly devoted to his or her own opinions and prejudices; especially: one who regards or treats the members of a group (as a racial or ethnic group) with hatred and intolerance
Bigot - Definition and More from the Free Merriam-Webster Dictionary

I guess it all depends upon what you choose as your definition of the word now doesn't it? It seems to me based on these other defitions that bigot applies quite well.

Now are you going "to dismiss everyone who disagrees with their (your) views" as you "suggest that everyone who thinks that the bigots are the people that vote against same sex marriage are small minded" as you stated in your post?

Funny how it's wrong to dismiss the "bigots" even as you dismiss others because they disagree with you.

I could not but help to think that the second definition he presented fits him to a "T". There are others on the board who are "obstinately or intolerantly devoted to his or her own opinions and prejudices", but he most definitely fits the definition IMHO.

drsmith, when was the last time your position "evolved"? Have you ever met a conservative you liked? Do you think there is any possibility that you might some day in your life? Are you going to dismiss everyone who disagrees with your views as you seem to have done in the past? I'm willing to admit that I may be wrong about you. Are you willing to "evolve"?

Before you ask, I can tell you without any hesitation that my views have "evolved" in many areas. Abortion... I used to think that everyone who was pro-choice were thrilled to death at the thought of 4,000 babies dying every day. Now, I realize, the vast majority of them are just as sickened by that idea as I am, but don't want government to interfere in our lives. Gay Marriage... used to believe that marriage was a union between one man and one woman (still do that) and that the homosexuals could go screw themselves if they thought they were going to destroy the sanctity of marriage. Now, I realize that homosexuals are discriminated in many ways, that they are entitled to the same rights and privileges as citizens of the United States as I am and that the government has no right being involved in the rites of the church. Therefore, the government needs to establish civil union laws and all "marriages" need to be established under civil union contracts. Churches should be free to marry whomever they want, but a "marriage" should not be given any special priviliges by the state. Those are two areas. There are others, but I am still not willing to claim that I am not a bigot. I have my prejudices just like everyone else.

So, how, many of you are willing to be open minded and change your long held beliefs or are you willing to look yourself in the mirror and admit that you are a bigot?

Immie

You make some good points. Not sure if DrS should be the target of your wrath, but then again, he hasn't posted enough that I've read to decide.

I actually know two people that I consider conservatives that changed their minds on the gay rights issue from discussions on messagesboards. It is very gratifying to see someone have an epiphany.

And in case you don't think I've ever changed my mind, I did. About the 2nd amendment. And I even learned to not blame Dubya for all the woes in the world.

the sad thing is that instead of addressing the actual content of my post and how I pointed out some of the flaws/bigotry within the OP immie took the opportunity to attack me based on his own bias against the left as he tries to define me based on some misguided belief of what he believes is representative of a liberal.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

As already correctly noted, it is not ‘bigotry’ to reject and be critical of the ignorance and animus exhibited above.

That they are bigots as a ‘good faith’ consequence of their religious dogma or ignorance of homosexuals in general neither mitigates nor justifies their bigotry. That they don’t ‘intend’ to be mean or bigoted is not an excuse, just as ignorance of the law is not an excuse.

Learn to use the fracking quote button.

Let me help you out. He was quoting from the link you posted in the OP. And his response to it was spot on.

I know what he was quoting, but the way he quoted it actually violated copyright laws by not giving proper attribution. Being as he is a wannabe lawyer in grade school, he needs to avoid breaking the law in such obvious, if trivial, ways.

It also totally missed the entire point of the blog I linked to, which means it was far from spot on.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Where were my "unfounded assumptions" based on a "lack of tolerance" that helped in "making your point"? I'm starting to wonder whether you're able to conceptualize the dual-perspective you think others should have.

Also please try to answer this question you seemed to miss:



Seems like you're trolling here more than anything else...playing head games.

Your unfounded assumption was that I oppose same sex marriage, I don't. That assumption was based on your lack of tolerance, oi your idiocy. I chose to assume the least offensive option since you chose to interpret my offensiveness as intolerance,

The Prime Minister of Australia is openly atheist, lives with a man who she is not married to, and opposes same sex marriage, go ask her what her rational for it is. Don't be surprised if it doesn't have anything to do with religion. Why should I answer a question that, if you truly want an answer to, you can learn the answers for yourself?I only research questions for two reasons, 1) I am curious about the answer, or 2) I get paid for my time.

So I was right about the head games.

All you've proved in this thread is that you might be worth disregarding in the future.

If, by head games, you mean I am pointing out how calling people bigots does not make them bigots, or that assuming the only possible explanation for not supporting same sex marriage is religious ignores the fact that there are outspoken atheists that oppose it, then I plead guilty to head games. If it makes you more comfortable to ignore me in the future so you don't have to deal with your own bigotry, feel free to do so.

If you actually want to grow, I suggest you pay attention to everyone, even the idiots, because I have seen everyone on this board have flashes of genius, even the asshole racists like Tank and Salt Jones.