Bigotry Defined OR The Pot Calling the Kettle Black

As I was traveling the road this time out and listening to the broadcast radio I was upset about how the words bigotry and bigot are so often misused. This word is often used by extremists, and most normally by leftist extremists, to label anyone who refuses to agree with them.

First, lets define the words (according to Merriam-Webster) :

- bigotry : the state of mind of a bigot

- bigot : a person obstinately or intolerantly devoted to his or her own opinions and prejudices

What I have observed is that those who most often resort to trying to paint those who disagree with them as bigots are themselves bigots. They refuse to engage in rational discussion of the issues and fall back on the idea that anyone who is not swayed by their arguments is unconvinced only because the listener (or reader) is a bigot. Often the speakers themselves are bigots. They irrationally (obstinately and intolerantly) refuse to believe someone might legitimately hold an opinion different from theirs.

Take the issue of gay marriage specifically and homosexuality in general as an example. My opinion is that those who engage in gay sexual activity are strictly performing "unnatural" sexual acts.

But then, once again according to Merriam-Webster, let us define "unnatural" : not being in accordance with nature or consistent with a normal course of events.

God, or Mother Nature, (take your pick) specifically designed sexual organs for reproduction. That is why the man has a penis and a woman has a vagina, so that the seed might eventually penetrate the egg. This is the "natural" reason for sexual organs to have evolved (if you believe in evolution). Man did not evolve with a penis so that it would penetrate another mans rectum. What is the seed going to fertilize in there, the other man's stool?

Those who try and paint homosexuality as "natural" are engaging in fallacious arguments. They will point out how some animal species also engage in same sex unions, while trying to discount the fact that these unions do nothing to enhance the propagation of that species.

The purpose of sex is propagation, or procreation. It might be fun as a recreational activity, but God or Mother Nature only made it fun so that we would do it as often as possible. While heterosexuals might also engage in "unnatural" sexual activity at times, at least occasionally during hetero sexual activity the round peg finds the round hole.

I am not saying homosexuals should be punished. I think they have the right to privacy in the bedroom just like my wife and I do. If they want to engage in sodomy it should be as OK for them as it is for my wife and I, and I do not want the storm troopers breaking down my front door every time my wife and I try to experiment a little bit.

But what should we as a society actively encourage? Is it wrong for society to reward those who commit to lifestyles that result in "natural" propagation of the species while denying these rewards to those who do not?

In my opinion it is not, and I sure wish those homosexual advocates would stop being such bigots. They have a right to privacy. They do not have a right to marriage.


Blogger Michael said...

Sorry, but it is the essence of bigotry. Needless to say, very few bigots think themselves as such.

Your argument hinges on the idea that there is a "natural" order and things against this are "wrong". This idea is fundamentally flawed. Since when have humans limited themselves to "natural" actions?

Surely then marriage between ONE man and ONE woman is pretty "unnatural" since the natural urges for a man would be to "sow his seed" as far and wide as possible.

More specifically, by your arguments then contraception and sex not for the purpose of procreation would be exactly in the same boat as homosexuality.

As per your own definition, a bigot is "a person obstinately or intolerantly devoted to his or her own opinions and prejudices". You have really have no specific arguments against homosexuality except that you consider it "wrong". Defying the "natural order" may be "wrong", but if you believe this to be the case, then I expect you to be a little bit more consistently in your ideology. If you cannot apply consistently in your own ideology, then it is simply nothing more than a convenient justification for your own point of view.

I'm not charging you as a "bigot", but you can't one one hand pretend to be open minded and present this highly flawed argument.


2/05/2006 08:39:00 AM  
Blogger Little David said...


You, in your arguments, have put forth that homosexual sex is "natural".

If we as a society are not going to adopt the Pope's ideology that "every sperm is sacred" we are going to have to draw the line somewhere.

We MUST draw the line SOMEWHERE. I draw my line at monogamous, heterosexual relationships. I am not proposing we go back to tattooing people with the "scarlet letter A" or imprison homosexuals. However I do think society has the right to not encourage either adultery or homosexuality.

If we were to follow your lead, well then I guess we better watch out. Your relativistic morality would lead to "Katy bar the door".

I draw the line at "One man, one woman" as being a marriage. If homosexuals want to bugger each other in the privacy of their own bedroom, let them go right ahead. Just do not ask me to subsidize their lifestyle by asking me to give them a tax break for doing it.

3/04/2006 03:38:00 PM  

Post a Comment

<< Home