10 votes

"Bigots" and "Fags"...Loaded Terms

The two terms are loaded. They are meant as a way to dismiss another, a term of disgust with another. The one calls a homosexual a "faggot." Another person (homosexual or not) calls the other a "Bigot." Are either of these right?

Look, we are trying to put together a liberty movement, people. One person is in the religious right. He goes to church and reads his Bible every day. He sees to love his neighbor but he also reads that homosexuality is a sin. So...in his religious conviction, he believes homosexuality is a sin. In the liberty movement, that should be fine. With his family, with the way he chooses to educate his children, with his property, with his business, with his money...all of it (in a truly free society) can be used as he pleases. If that means he has a motel where only heterosexual couples are married my stay, so be it. If he sens his kids to a school that teaches traditional values, so be it.

The other person (homosexual or heterosexual) believes that sexual preference is a non issue. Religious or not, God (or nature) made the homosexual the way he or she is. The homosexual should be free to love and live. That person believes the religion of the other is wrong, steeped in the trappings of a worn out and outdated manual from long ago. He wants what the other wants, though...he wants to be able with his family, the education of his children, with his business, with his money...to do what he would like.

I don't really care which camp you are in. I do see that especially public name-calling won't keep us all together. There are many in the liberty movement who are in the first camp. They might be more in the "constitutional" side of the movement, but they are in this movement, nevertheless. If you call them a "Bigot" enough times, you use a term that is meant to divide and it eventually will. On the other hand, there are many who are in the second camp. They shouldn't be called names either..."faggot" or "Faggot lover" or whatever. Again, terms meant to demean and divide.

You call the ones in the liberty movement amoral, sinner, faggot, queer, enough times and they will head right back into the full blown mainstream democratic party, which has nothing to do with freedom.

You call others in the liberty movement bigots, zealots, haters, enough times, and they will head right back into the full blown mainstream republican party, which has nothing to do with freedom.

Think about it.

Trending on the Web

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.

I like this post a lot. As a

I like this post a lot.

As a Christ follower it is difficult to separate sin from sinner because I am a broken man with bias and ignorance. And since Christ says that all have sinned and that he loves all, it seems that he loves homosexuals and wants them to turn from their sin, just as he loves me amd wants me to turn from all of my sin.

Your post very sharply points out, to me, why government MUST stay out of the individuals personal matters that do not impact or involve other individuals via some kind of force. Government should NEVER be a weapon to force an individual to think, believe or act a certain way...today it seems that is all it is used for...

"The more you sweat in training, the less you bleed in battle."

50 years ago, those words would be "racist" and "nigger"

I dare you to tell me with a straight face that the two words are equally damaging.

Both can ruin a life, both

Both can ruin a life, both can illicit vitriol and hatred, both can be said with a hateful heart.

Discrimination and hatred are equal opprotunity. Words are powerful but it is from the overflow of the individual heart that those words are spoken.

I have seen and heard both spoken hatefully. One more often than the other but both dripping with hatred.

"The more you sweat in training, the less you bleed in battle."

One is based on learned behavior that can be unlearned

The other is an attack on a person's intrinsic qualities that cannot be unqualified. They're not on par with each other, they're not even on the same course. Maybe neither are right, but they're sure as hell nowhere near as binary as you're making them out to be.

Probably not intrinsic

As I've said elsewhere, it's doubtful that people are very often born gay. The trait would be eliminated or minimized by evolutionary forces since the defining characteristic would be reluctance to do precisely the thing that would allow the trait to be passed along.

Gay lifestyle and behavior codes could be learned just as much as bigotry. It would just take gayness being normalized and promoted through political and/or media agendas.

Im not trying to elevate one

Im not trying to elevate one above the other, only pointing out that words have power and they have even more power when spoken from the heart.

I wasnt alive 50 years ago. Calling an individual a 'nigger' was often done with hatred and was intended to degrade a human being. Still is sometimes. Calling an individual a 'racist' or 'bigot' can also be done with hatred and the intention to degrade a human being.

The only difference I see is that sometimes the term 'racist' is actually warranted.

"The more you sweat in training, the less you bleed in battle."

Elevating one above the other

Has long since been done by society. The weight behind the two words isn't even comparable, one is far more degrading than the other. Maybe not everyone can appreciate that equally, but I don't think the word "nigger" is used with the intention of anything other than degrading someone as often as your suggesting it is. Pun not intended, this stuff is not as black and white as you seem to think it is. The same applies to the arguments in the post. I'd wager no one's ever been driven to suicide over being called a "bigot", that no one's ever been beaten to death by a group of people calling them a "bigot", or refused a job because of being a "bigot". It takes someone with a gigantically bruised ego over their own prejudices to even consider the idea that "bigot" is as horrible a thing to call someone as "faggot" is.

Society decides which is

Society decides which is worse by general attitudes of the people. There was a time when it was far more dangerous to be labled "niger" than "racist." In those days, the insults weren't even on par because being called niger was dangerous. Today it has reversed and it is the "racist" who is a hunted man. The differance is, racists look like anyone which opens the door to witch hunts. Still its safer to be labeled a racist today than a niger a hundred years ago.

Great post OP.