Defending the Truth

Calling someone a bigot for a difference of opinion is wrong. You are not God to define the meaning of words. Take your new age liberal new speak and shove it. We aint conforming.

South Park had an episode which was labelled something along the lines of "Simpsons Did It".
Over and over again, a South Park character tried to think of an original story-line, but each time he came up with something it was something Simpsons had already done.

And of course, there was the episode in South Park where a Bart Simpson look-alike character popped up as one of the cartoon children.

I'ld say South Park has given some props to Simpsons, and for good reason. Lots of shows have.

The Simpsons has lasted for 18 years, and still going strong. I doubt any animated show will ever break that record.

I wasn't calling anybody a "bigot" just because their opinion differed.
I was calling somebody a bigot IF they chose to vote against a candidate SOLELY BECAUSE that candidate was gay.

Please try and keep some truth and honesty in your posts when you pretend to claim what my position is...


And for the record Alias, although I expected it, you didn't answer my question....

If you can give me a word that is synonymous with "bigot" that you think I should use instead, that would be a good start...

Calling someone a bigot for voting against a candidate solely because that candidate is gay is not being a bigot. It's being smart. It's only bigoted to you because you need to demonize your opposition for having the guts to disagree with your agenda.

It's bigotry. Plain and simple.

What would you call it if a person refused to vote for a black candidate?
What would you call it if a person refused to vote for a Jewish candidate?
What would you call it if a person refused to vote for a Christian candidate?

You refuse to acknowledge it as such because it's a bigotry you espouse.
Like the KKK, you refuse to acknowledge your position is bigotted.


Again with the futile dishonesty.
I have no problem with somebody "disagreeing" with my opinions.
Disagreeing with my opinions doesn't make another person a bigot.
I have no problem with somebody voting against somebody who doesn't have their political opinions.
The issue is voting against a candidate JUST BECAUSE he is gay.
In EVERY OTHER WAY, this guy appears to be a poster-child for Republicans.
It's JUST his sexual orientation they are freaking out about.

Would you vote against somebody if that person was anti-abortion?

"anti-abortion" is a POLITICAL issue. And depending upon the extremity of the "anti-abortion" view-point, I would possibly cast my POLITICAL vote against somebody if their POLITICAL view was that different.

But being gay IS NOT a political issue. The article DESCRIBED this guy's political issues.
They are lock-step with the Republican party line.
And the other side is voting against him JUST BECAUSE he is gay.

Actually, I think it would be more interesting to ask how many people would vote AGAINST the gay guy if their only other option was a pro-abortionist...

If there was a gay candidate who held to your political ideals PERFECTLY...
... and the only other candidate was one that was pro-abortion, anti-religion, yadda-yadda-yadda...

What would be the minimum combination before an anti-gay person would switch their vote to vote for the gay guy?


--------------------------------------
And for the record Jefferson, I'm not trying to dodge your question. I typically don't take much notice regarding a candidate's "abortion" views.
It's just not that big on my scale of voting priorities.

In other words, YES, you WOULD vote against a candidate that was anti-abortion.

So YES, using the same standard you apply to Alias, YOU TOO ARE A BIGOT. Period.

I think being gay is a political issue. I want to vote for someone who is in their right mind.

In a POLITICAL election, I would base my POLITICAL decision for voting on POLITICAL aspects.
And even then, as I EXPLICITLY stated but you failed to incorporate, I WOULD ALSO vote for a candidate that was pro-abortion.

Your "in other words" should have been phrased "In words that resemble nothing of what you ACTUALLY said..."