HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » Forums & Groups » Main » General Discussion (Forum) » I just called my sister's...

Wed Oct 31, 2012, 08:01 PM

I just called my sister's right-wing bigot "friend" out on his hypocrisy and hate.

Next week Minnesota voters will be deciding whether or not to write bigotry in to our Constitution when we will be asked to decide on an amendment which would restrict marriage to one man and one woman. It is a ballot question that has deeply divided our state and brought the bigots out in full force, over the past couple of days I have confronted one of those bigots.

My sister and I both strongly oppose this amendment and for my sister her opposition is especially personal. My sister is the mother of a beautiful six year old boy, he is an absolutely adorable kid that any parent would envy. He is extremely smart, he is one of the most compassionate little kids I have ever met, and he says the funniest things I have ever heard come out of a kid's mouth. He is not your typical little boy however, he has no interest in trucks or sports he would much rather play with kittens and take care of his baby sister. It is hard to find a pair boy's shoes that he likes, he would prefer to wear pink shoes and glitter every day if he could. At six years old there is no way to know his sexual orientation, but he defies gender stereotypes at this young age. While that does not necessarily mean that he is gay, my sister has certainly thought about the possibility that he might be and she views this marriage amendment as a direct attack on her children. Just considering the possibility that her son might be gay makes her want to protect him from bullying and bigotry and she has become extremely concerned about creating a society where all people are treated equally.

My sister also has a couple of old "friends" from high school whose views are very different than her own. These "friends" of hers are extreme right-wing Evangelical bigots and they love to post their crap on her Facebook page. For the longest time I would bite my tongue and not respond to them when they posted because I did not want to launch into a big political debate on my sister's Facebook page. This week however I could not restrain myself, this week the hypocrisy and bigotry were just too much and I had to call them out.

When my sister made a post encouraging people to vote NO on her Facebook page one of the bigots responded and as soon as I saw his response I knew I had to make sure that he was not going to get away with posting bigotry on my sister's Facebook page, this is our interaction.

The Bigot: You're actually right that this is what is to be expected when the government inserts itself into that which it does not belong. The larger government grows, the more entangled we'll all get in these discussions. Where do we draw the line on what the government defines as "marriage"? Someone will always be left out. There's really no reason that three people should not be married in a threesome and so on. Someone will always lose. I personally plan to vote yes because I believe that God instituted marriage between one man and one woman and without a yes vote, we'll end up redefining marriage completely in the other direction. I don't hate homosexuals and neither should anyone else. But I do believe it wrong, they also have an agenda, and I believe the world would be a better place if the government did not endorse this lifestyle in the future.


There are few things that grate me more than theocratic authoritarian types pretending that they are for small government while they try to use government to prevent people living outside their narrow world view and I could not let this hypocrisy go unchallenged.

Me: If you vote for this amendment that would use government to restrict people's rights then you are voting for bigger government. Period. I don't want government telling anyone what type of relationship they should be in and I am sick to death of so-called "small government conservatives" who want to increase the power of government to push their religious beliefs on us.


My sister jumped back into the debate and made it clear that he was not doing anything to convince her and after some back and forth the bigot said this:

Bigot: there are many including myself that would vote to limit the spread of this sin wherever possible. I'd love to see the government not endorse homosexuality or marriage at all for that matter. But the reality is that the envelope will continue to be pushed and sooner or later you'll be the one voting yes and I'll be the one voting no. Just in looking at how many people voted for Ron Paul in the primary, and compared to those who support Barack Obama and his stance on homosexuality, this country is not at all interested in the Constitution. They'd rather wage class warfare and pit one party against the other rather than embrace what our country was initially founded on, freedom without government interference.


There is so much hypocrisy to challenge here that it was hard to know where to begin, but this is what came out...

Me: If you want us to have freedom from government interference then don't demand the government interfere with the personal decisions of individuals to decide for themselves who they want to marry. If you don't want government interference then don't ask government to interfere with a woman's right to make her own medical decisions. If you want smaller government then demand that the government stop bombing other countries and demand a reduction in the size of the military. If you want smaller government then demand an end to the Republican efforts to make it more difficult to vote through voter ID and other measures. If you want more freedom from government then demand government get out of the way and allow workers to form a union. If you want a smaller government then demand that the government stay completely out of religion. If you want to end class warfare then vote out all the politicians who cut services for the poor and demand that the wealthy do not do anything to exploit workers or consumers. If you really want to take a stand against class warfare then you should denounce the candidate who waged class warfare on 47% of Americans. If you truly want smaller government you will vote "No" on both the Constitutional amendments that would increase the size and power of government.


The bigot did not like what I said...

Bigot:That's a pretty slanted view though, Bjorn. Voter ID has been proven in studies to not interfere w/ the ability to vote. In fact, it improved turnout I believe. That argument is just a gimmick. Abortion is also against the Constitution. I'm very into abiding by the Constitution and what our country was founded on, but that's also a two way street and encompasses public education among other things. I just don't think this country is at a place where people are seriously willing to embrace state rights, ditch a massive federal government, and quit federal deficit spending that will be passed on to our children. I do think it is terrible that those w/ homosexual tendencies feel hated. It is definitely not a normal thing, so I suppose that may play into it. I do think we need to show kindness above all, although there is certainly freedom to disagree w/ lifestyle.


Me: I would suggest you actually read the Constitution because it does not say what you claim it does. You might also want to ask the author of those so-called "studies" you cite to ask a person who just lost their wallet with their driver's license in it if voter ID laws will make it more difficult for them to vote.


Bigot: Feel free to quote what you think I do not understand about the Constitution, Bjorn. Regarding homosexuality, I do not believe it should be endorsed by the state, but it will be eventually if others with agendas have their way. And it sounds like you agree that government should step into this arena. This is exactly what I'm voting yes because I've come to realize that the drum will always keep beating and the government will always find a way to expand and insert itself into that which it does not belong. Homosexual marriage is not as big of an issue as people make it out to be. No one is stopping you from being a homosexual and doing what you please. If you feel that having marriage re-defined in the name of social justice is the right thing to do, then where does that end? The government surly cannot satisfy every definition can it? There are always those who will commit suicide (homosexual or not), as unfortunate as that may be. We're heading down a dangerous lifestyle path as a country if this is endorsed by the state. It's also a very slippery slope.


Me: I can't quote that which does not exist. You suggested abortion and gay marriage are unconstitutional, the Constitution does not say any such thing. I don't want to get distracted from the original issue however which is gay marriage and your insistence on having government define marriage, because let's be honest here you are the one demanding an expansion of government here. You are demanding the government defines marriage between one man and one woman and discriminate against anyone who does not fit your narrow definition, I am asking the government to get out of the way and allow people to marry who they want to marry. I don't believe the government should base laws on bigotry, and make no mistake about it denying gays the right to marry today is every but as bigoted as denying interracial marriage was a couple generations ago. One day you will be ashamed of endorsing this bigoted amendment.


The Bigot: I'd love it if government got out of the way as you indicate. I just don't think that is ever going to happen. The government has grown over time, not shrunk. It sounds like you are asking for an open ended expansion of a government's definition of marriage and that is what I am against. Perhaps we should agree that an amendment come forth where government does not define nor endorse marriages and that marriage is instead left to private entities such as churches and whoever else signs up. Call it a civil union or best friends if you will because it really isn't marriage which has always been between a man and a woman. If this is about benefits, then we're right back at government being in the way again.

We're really only touched on the amendment, but there are quite a few reasons I'm against homosexuality. That also plays into my view against expanding the government's definition of marriage.

To be honest, Minnesota's definition of marriage is already between those of the opposite sex.


At this point my sister had made another post making it very clear how hurtful the bigot's words were to her, yet he kept posting this bigotry. It was time to take him down good.

Me: If you "disagree with homosexuality" then you are a bigot. Period. You can protest that statement all you want, but it does not make it any less true. Disagreeing with someone for being gay is no different than disagreeing with someone for being black, no one chooses their sexual orientation and if you "disagree" with a person for being who they are that makes you a bigot. You can try to cloak your bigoted views in religion all you want, but there are many people who manage to hold religious views without being bigots. You are not one of them, you sit in your comfortable chair and single out a minority group to insist they are all sinners, but if anyone is a sinner it is you because are you spouting discriminatory words which you have been told are very hurtful to people. Sadly you don't even seem to care that your words might hurt gay people or their friends or family. No one chooses to be gay, but you did choose to speak bigotry. Your views are yours, there is no one forcing you to be a bigot and you could change your views if you wanted to but a gay person can not change their sexual orientation. You may not like me, but I do love my sister and if you are going to post bigotry on my sister's page when you know it is hurtful to her then I am going to call you out on your bigotry.


The bigot has not been back to post anything else since that call out, I may have potentially caused my sister to lose a "friend" but she has already told me she is glad I challenged him. I thought I was taking somewhat of a risk going after someone my sister has known for years, but when someone posts hurtful bigotry on my sister's page I could not be silent, and in the end I think this is going to bring me and my sister closer together. Bigotry needs to be challenged, and sometimes the only way to make people stop spouting their bigotry is to shame them for their bigotry. I am not going to put up with this guy's shit any more.

5 replies, 3304 views

Reply to this thread

Back to top Alert abuse

Always highlight: 10 newest replies | Replies posted after I mark a forum
Replies to this discussion thread
Arrow 5 replies Author Time Post
Reply I just called my sister's right-wing bigot "friend" out on his hypocrisy and hate. (Original post)
Bjorn Against Oct 2012 OP
calimary Oct 2012 #1
GentryDixon Oct 2012 #2
patrice Oct 2012 #3
patrice Oct 2012 #4
IVoteDFL Oct 2012 #5

Response to Bjorn Against (Original post)

Wed Oct 31, 2012, 08:07 PM

1. All of this is FANTASTIC! But I particularly liked this line:

"No one chooses to be gay, but you did choose to speak bigotry."

It's that "freedomy-freedomy thing." Freedom to be an inconsiderate, loutish, hypocritical and yes - RACIST and BIGOTTED asshole!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Bjorn Against (Original post)

Wed Oct 31, 2012, 08:27 PM

2. Your sister doesn't need

that type of friend. You did well standing up to the bully.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Bjorn Against (Original post)

Wed Oct 31, 2012, 08:45 PM

3. Good work! & You are precisely right; HE is the one calling for expanded government & you are the

one calling for less government.

If two people love one another just as much, or maybe even more than lots of married couples, including, or not, or to whatever degree that is relevant to their relationship, as is appropriate with any other married couple, the sexuality of their effect upon one another, and those two people happen to be of the same sex, it is an expansion of intrusive government to tell those two people, who have all of the other traits of married couples that they may not marry.

No one is mandated to marry anyone else of the same sex, so marriage is not redefined. If one wants to marry the opposite sex, the government does not intrude in that and say it isn't a marriage. It is the two people involved in the relationship who define it as a marriage by their vows to one another. The government intrudes and its powers are expanded when it tries to limit the adults who have reached their majority whom are allowed to marry.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Bjorn Against (Original post)

Wed Oct 31, 2012, 09:42 PM

4. "what our country was initially founded on, freedom without government interference" FOR WHITE MALES

who OWNED a certain amount of PROPERTY, INCLUDING OTHER PERSONS.

There was plenty of government interference in the lives of people that culminated in The Constitution. Indeed the original authors of The Constitution FORGOT about the Rights of We the People entirely, until the product of their Constitutional Convention was taken back to lesser propertied males in the colonies, at which time the people said, TTE, "What about our Rights?" and the founding fathers had to take the document back and finally appended a Bill of Rights to it almost 2 years later after its original passage WITHOUT THOSE RIGHTS.

Freedom for whom?

Not for the Indigenous Persons who lived on the real estate that the White Males decided, all by themselves, that they owned, so the American Indians were murdered and hunted and hounded into government compounds.

Not for the African Slaves who were first brought to this country in 1619, who, for the purpose of the votes in the Constitutional Convention, were counted as 3/5 of a person each as the property of those who "owned" them and the economic value of whose labor was transferred from them to the propertied white class for 244 years before they were freed by President Abraham Lincoln in 1863 and whose right to vote went for 177 years from the signing of The Constitution before it was recognized in 1964.

Not for women who went for 133 years from the signing of The Constitution before their right to vote was recognized in 1920 and whose economic freedom to this day is still counted as only 75% as valuable as a man's and whose bodies are still under attack and invasion by male reproductive fascism.

"They'd rather wage class warfare and pit one party against the other rather than embrace what our country was initially founded on, freedom without government interference."


It is to laugh! Class warfare is encoded into the identity of this nation; our bi-cameral legislative branch clearly manifests the dichotomy between more or less direct representation in the House of Representatives, compared to indirect aristocratic representation in the Senate.

All of the things sketched above were made possible by The Constitution our country was initially founded on and every bit of it illustrates "our"/the people's government interfering with lives and in it we see manifest the processes of LEARNING and HUMAN ADAPTATION which CHANGE that interference and which are more authentically what America is than The Constitution ever was.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Bjorn Against (Original post)

Wed Oct 31, 2012, 09:51 PM

5. Excellent points!

I've been wanting to post something on my facebook page about voting no on the marriage amendment. I don't have many friends on there but every vote counts.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Reply to this thread