• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

If a man states I favor tradiional marriage does that make him a bigot or a homophobe

If a man states I favor tradiional marriage does that make him a bigot or a homophobe

  • Total voters
    84
Re: If a man states I favor tradiional marriage does that make him a bigot or a homop

Kal'Stang said:
Bold: There is no evidence that those against SSM have that actually support them.
Click to expand...

Which is why I said, "For [them]."
 
Re: If a man states I favor tradiional marriage does that make him a bigot or a homop

earthworm said:
other or no vote
The homosexuals must learn respect and tolerance, the same as we must learn this.
Click to expand...
Do you mean that homosexuals are typically, on the whole, as bad as straights at respect and tolerance? This hasn't been my experience and I've had plenty of it.
 
Re: If a man states I favor tradiional marriage does that make him a bigot or a homop

Navy Pride said:
It seems like a lot of people on the left seem to think so....I am asking you what do you think?
Click to expand...

"Traditional marriage" is not only a euphemism (which is typical of partisan politics) but is totally devoid of meaning. Heterosexual marriage has changed so many times, just in the history of this country alone, that to say "traditional marriage" doesn't mean anything other than a political talking point.

Yes, I do believe that someone who opposes same-sex marriage (which is what "favoring 'traditional marriage'" really means) is inherently a homophobe. There are plenty of reasons for opposing SSM, but none of them are rational or logical. The only reason for opposing SSM is anti-gay bigotry, more commonly known as homophobia.

If you are balking at my assertion, consider this: what would you think of someone who told you that they aren't racist, but oppose interracial marriage? Would you not consider them to not only be a racist, but a lying and cowardly racist at that?
 
Re: If a man states I favor tradiional marriage does that make him a bigot or a homop

Miguel17 said:
"Traditional marriage" is not only a euphemism (which is typical of partisan politics) but is totally devoid of meaning. Heterosexual marriage has changed so many times,
Click to expand...

How has "hetereosexual marriage changed so many times".
 
Re: If a man states I favor tradiional marriage does that make him a bigot or a homop

TheLastIndependent said:
I voted no.. It doesn't make you bigoted to favor traditional marriage. It only makes you a bigot if you seperate homosexuals and take their rights away.
Click to expand...

Who's taking rights away that didn't exist in the first place.
 
Re: If a man states I favor tradiional marriage does that make him a bigot or a homop

Matt Foley said:
How has "hetereosexual marriage changed so many times".
Click to expand...

Well, for starters bigamy is far more common in the history of marriage then polygamy is. It's also been subject to other norms depending on the society. For example the Greeks practiced "heterosexual marriage" while some married men also had pederastic relationships on the side without much ado from their wives. Up until pretty recently it was pretty accepted that a married man of high class society would also have a mistress. Sometimes openly, other times not so openly. So while "heterosexual marriage" may not have changed as far as the key components required in order to have a "heterosexual marriage", the social context under which it has operated sure has and by definition have given new meanings to the concept.
 
Re: If a man states I favor tradiional marriage does that make him a bigot or a homop

Matt Foley said:
How has "hetereosexual marriage changed so many times".
Click to expand...

Well, our idea of heterosexual marriage today is not "traditional" in any real sense. I'm sure you know that interracial marriage has been considered immoral (especially when the woman was white) for a long time in Anglo-Saxon culture. In the United States, it was illegal for a long time nationwide, and remained illegal in many states until Loving v. Virginia in 1967. The idea of a majority-based (18 years old) marriage is also a new concept. It was traditionally acceptable for, say, an adult male and a what we would consider to be a female child to marry in the old western tradition, and until the 20th century it was legal in many states. In many Christian churches today in America, the minimum age of matrimony is much lower than 18. For a long time, marriage between people of different religions was strictly prohibited. Our concept of incestuous marriage--for example, between uncles and nieces or first cousins--does not have a long tradition in the west, and in our own country it would be ahistorical to describe modern kinship restrictions on marriage to be "traditional marriage." These are a few of the ways marriage has changed. My point, of course, is that there is no "traditional marriage" to speak of. It's a paper tiger used by people who have no legitimate reason to deny same-sex couples equal rights, and instead falsely invoke "tradition."
 
Re: If a man states I favor tradiional marriage does that make him a bigot or a homop

mac said:
So, it's never society's place to tell people "how to live"?
Click to expand...
What? It's always been "society's place to tell people "how to live"." It effectively doesn't matter what society you consider.
 
Re: If a man states I favor tradiional marriage does that make him a bigot or a homop

How has "hetereosexual marriage changed so many times".

Miguel17 said:
Well, our idea of heterosexual marriage today is not "traditional" in any real sense. I'm sure you know that interracial marriage has been considered immoral (especially when the woman was white) for a long time in Anglo-Saxon culture...
Click to expand...

How has "hetereosexual marriage changed so many times".
 
Re: If a man states I favor tradiional marriage does that make him a bigot or a homop

How has "hetereosexual marriage changed so many times".

Hatuey said:
Well, for starters bigamy is far more common in the history of marriage then polygamy is. It's also been subject to other norms depending on the society. For example the Greeks practiced "heterosexual marriage" while some married men also had pederastic relationships on the side without much ado from their wives. Up until pretty recently it was pretty accepted that a married man of high class society would also have a mistress. Sometimes openly, other times not so openly. So while "heterosexual marriage" may not have changed as far as the key components required in order to have a "heterosexual marriage", the social context under which it has operated sure has and by definition have given new meanings to the concept.
Click to expand...

That's right "heterosexual marriage" hasn't changed, I'm glad you agree.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marriage_in_ancient_Rome#Augustan_marriage_laws

Marriage in ancient Rome

ALmost nothing has changed for the last, oh, 2000 years
 
Last edited:
Re: If a man states I favor tradiional marriage does that make him a bigot or a homop

Matt Foley said:
How has "hetereosexual marriage changed so many times".



How has "hetereosexual marriage changed so many times".
Click to expand...

In the bible it was one man and any number of women and/or concubines. Later this went away, only two people!! Mormons brought it back for a bit, one man, many wives. Went away again. In the old testament, if a guy raped a virgin he had to marry her and pay her father some money for spoiling her. That... went out of style. Someone at some point decided interracial marriage was bad. Then we later decided it was fine. The concept of romance took a while to come along, it was just a legal contract between two families to start. People used to get married at like age 11. Some places people still do get married very young, others we make them wait to age 18. Would you like to hear what the Greeks, Romans, and Vikings thought about marriage or should I stop there? The vikings married a lot of women they... well, abducted. Pretty sure that's illegal now.

Oh, I almost forgot. In some states and countries, two people of the same gender are married right now. Has your life changed as a result?
 
Last edited:
Re: If a man states I favor tradiional marriage does that make him a bigot or a homop

Matt Foley said:
How has "hetereosexual marriage changed so many times".



How has "hetereosexual marriage changed so many times".
Click to expand...

I'll give you the bullet points, because apparently taking thirty seconds to actually read my post was too taxing on you.

In just our country's history, these have all radically redefined traditional marriage.
-Interracial marriage
-Inter religious marriage
-Kinship marriage
-Statutory age of marriage
 
Re: If a man states I favor tradiional marriage does that make him a bigot or a homop

Miguel17 said:
I'll give you the bullet points, because apparently taking thirty seconds to actually read my post was too taxing on you.

In just our country's history, these have all radically redefined traditional marriage.
-Interracial marriage
-Inter religious marriage
-Kinship marriage
-Statutory age of marriage
Click to expand...

All of those changes required either state law changes or constitutional amendments to cause them just as SSM does. SSM is now legal in 6 states and DC, yet curiously NOT in Rahm's home of "Chicago values". ;-)
 
Re: If a man states I favor tradiional marriage does that make him a bigot or a homop

ttwtt78640 said:
All of those changes required either state law changes or constitutional amendments to cause them just as SSM does. SSM is now legal in 6 states and DC, yet curiously NOT in Rahm's home of "Chicago values". ;-)
Click to expand...

No, interracial marriage was not changed by either. It was changed by the SCOTUS.
 
Re: If a man states I favor tradiional marriage does that make him a bigot or a homop

Miguel17 said:
No, interracial marriage was not changed by either. It was changed by the SCOTUS.
Click to expand...

Based on CONSTITUTIONAL amendments right? The SCOTUS can not NORMALLY just make stuff up, they must point to the Constitutition (or its amendments) as justification. Get real!
 
Re: If a man states I favor tradiional marriage does that make him a bigot or a homop

ttwtt78640 said:
Based on CONSTITUTIONAL amendments right? The SCOTUS can not NORMALLY just make stuff up, they must point to the Constitutition (or its amendments) as justification. Get real!
Click to expand...

Yeah, I thought you meant that it was the constitutional amendment that changed the law. But it's good to point out the 14th, because that's the same amendment that provides the constitutional framework for SSM.
 
Re: If a man states I favor tradiional marriage does that make him a bigot or a homop

I think that a great majority of people in America and in the world associate the word "marriage" with "a man and a woman as husband and wife", and understandably so.

I don't think, however, that most of them have a problem with homosexuals having committed relationships and receiving equal socioeconomic and geopolitical treatment under the law with regard to their relationship with the state.

I do think, however, that a majority of these people have a problem with the word "marriage" being misused out of context of the long-established traditional humanity instutitution framework.

Thus if the "gay marriage" movement simply changed their terminology, calling their civil union domestic partnership "homarriage" instead of "marriage", the great majority of so-called "traditional marriage" supporters would be happy.

However, the problem with this is that it's easier said than done, as the reason the "gay marriage" movement exists is that all they would have to do to get that equal socioeconomic and geopolitical treatment under the law with regard to their relationship with the state, their real bottom line issue, is to successfully redefine the word marriage in the eyes of the state, whereas creating a new-termed "homarriage" civil union domestic partnership in all 50 states and whatever else federal requirements too, well, that could take scores of years to do.

And it would take scores of years to do because really only around two percent, according to a recent study posted here at DP earlier this year, I think it was, two percent of the population is exclusively homosexual to the "gay/lesbian" degree that they would even consider marriage, and thus the cause undertaken "properly" would fail like an "orphaned drug", lacking the necessary massive support for success.

So the leaders of the "gay marriage" movement have taken what they deem to be the shortcut of redfining marriage, the only real chance for success and success soon .. much to the "don't steal our tradition from us" objection of much, much greater numbers of people who don't want their institution of marriage sullied.

I have no idea how this problem will get resolved so that both sides are happy and non-damaged in the process.

But each side would do well not to instill animosity in the other regardless of the outcome.

If there was some way for both sides to get together and make a concerted effort to achieve what both sides really want, I doubt there would be any legislative force that would stand in their way from accomplishing their goal very soon.
 
Re: If a man states I favor tradiional marriage does that make him a bigot or a homop

Ontologuy said:
I think that a great majority of people in America and in the world associate the word "marriage" with "a man and a woman as husband and wife", and understandably so.

I don't think, however, that most of them have a problem with homosexuals having committed relationships and receiving equal socioeconomic and geopolitical treatment under the law with regard to their relationship with the state.

I do think, however, that a majority of these people have a problem with the word "marriage" being misused out of context of the long-established traditional humanity instutitution framework.

Thus if the "gay marriage" movement simply changed their terminology, calling their civil union domestic partnership "homarriage" instead of "marriage", the great majority of so-called "traditional marriage" supporters would be happy.

However, the problem with this is that it's easier said than done, as the reason the "gay marriage" movement exists is that all they would have to do to get that equal socioeconomic and geopolitical treatment under the law with regard to their relationship with the state, their real bottom line issue, is to successfully redefine the word marriage in the eyes of the state, whereas creating a new-termed "homarriage" civil union domestic partnership in all 50 states and whatever else federal requirements too, well, that could take scores of years to do.

And it would take scores of years to do because really only around two percent, according to a recent study posted here at DP earlier this year, I think it was, two percent of the population is exclusively homosexual to the "gay/lesbian" degree that they would even consider marriage, and thus the cause undertaken "properly" would fail like an "orphaned drug", lacking the necessary massive support for success.

So the leaders of the "gay marriage" movement have taken what they deem to be the shortcut of redfining marriage, the only real chance for success and success soon .. much to the "don't steal our tradition from us" objection of much, much greater numbers of people who don't want their institution of marriage sullied.

I have no idea how this problem will get resolved so that both sides are happy and non-damaged in the process.

But each side would do well not to instill animosity in the other regardless of the outcome.

If there was some way for both sides to get together and make a concerted effort to achieve what both sides really want, I doubt there would be any legislative force that would stand in their way from accomplishing their goal very soon.
Click to expand...

But polls have demonstrated time and again that the majority of Americans now support SSM, without any qualifier, and without calling it "homarriage" or using any other neologisms. I think it's demonstrably clear that most Americans aren't worried about their "tradition" being stolen, or the institution of marriage being sullied (how would it be sullied, anyways? SSM wouldn't effect heterosexuals at all).

The fact that support for SSM has been rising so rapidly, and in the same direction shows that time is on the side of SSM advocates. The culture is changing, and supporters may not have to change the law before the culture supports it (like with interracial marriage or minority civil rights). Within another decade or two, I'm sure that there will be such a clamoring of support for equality that it may even be accomplished by state referendums.
 
Re: If a man states I favor tradiional marriage does that make him a bigot or a homop

Ontologuy said:
I think that a great majority of people in America and in the world associate the word "marriage" with "a man and a woman as husband and wife", and understandably so.

I don't think, however, that most of them have a problem with homosexuals having committed relationships and receiving equal socioeconomic and geopolitical treatment under the law with regard to their relationship with the state.

I do think, however, that a majority of these people have a problem with the word "marriage" being misused out of context of the long-established traditional humanity instutitution framework.

Thus if the "gay marriage" movement simply changed their terminology, calling their civil union domestic partnership "homarriage" instead of "marriage", the great majority of so-called "traditional marriage" supporters would be happy.

However, the problem with this is that it's easier said than done, as the reason the "gay marriage" movement exists is that all they would have to do to get that equal socioeconomic and geopolitical treatment under the law with regard to their relationship with the state, their real bottom line issue, is to successfully redefine the word marriage in the eyes of the state, whereas creating a new-termed "homarriage" civil union domestic partnership in all 50 states and whatever else federal requirements too, well, that could take scores of years to do.

And it would take scores of years to do because really only around two percent, according to a recent study posted here at DP earlier this year, I think it was, two percent of the population is exclusively homosexual to the "gay/lesbian" degree that they would even consider marriage, and thus the cause undertaken "properly" would fail like an "orphaned drug", lacking the necessary massive support for success.

So the leaders of the "gay marriage" movement have taken what they deem to be the shortcut of redfining marriage, the only real chance for success and success soon .. much to the "don't steal our tradition from us" objection of much, much greater numbers of people who don't want their institution of marriage sullied.

I have no idea how this problem will get resolved so that both sides are happy and non-damaged in the process.

But each side would do well not to instill animosity in the other regardless of the outcome.

If there was some way for both sides to get together and make a concerted effort to achieve what both sides really want, I doubt there would be any legislative force that would stand in their way from accomplishing their goal very soon.
Click to expand...

You know what? Some do think that. Too bad. The two arguments are not equal. No group has some exclusive right to define marriage. Marriage is not a word religious people own. This isn't an argument over WORDS, it's an argument over RIGHTS. In what ridiculous universe does the right to a definition supercede individual liberty?
 
Re: If a man states I favor tradiional marriage does that make him a bigot or a homop

Also, we've had that "separate but equal" discussion in this country before. Using a separate term leaves an inherent impression that the minority group is inferior, because they don't get to be part of the majority. Not an option.
 
Re: If a man states I favor tradiional marriage does that make him a bigot or a homop

Deuce said:
Also, we've had that "separate but equal" discussion in this country before. Using a separate term leaves an inherent impression that the minority group is inferior, because they don't get to be part of the majority. Not an option.
Click to expand...

Marriage isn't really "marriage" anymore. Today, it's little more than a legal agreement. People really should stop calling it "marriage" altogether.
 
Re: If a man states I favor tradiional marriage does that make him a bigot or a homop

Miguel17 said:
But polls have demonstrated time and again that the majority of Americans now support SSM, without any qualifier, and without calling it "homarriage" or using any other neologisms. I think it's demonstrably clear that most Americans aren't worried about their "tradition" being stolen, or the institution of marriage being sullied (how would it be sullied, anyways? SSM wouldn't effect heterosexuals at all).

The fact that support for SSM has been rising so rapidly, and in the same direction shows that time is on the side of SSM advocates. The culture is changing, and supporters may not have to change the law before the culture supports it (like with interracial marriage or minority civil rights). Within another decade or two, I'm sure that there will be such a clamoring of support for equality that it may even be accomplished by state referendums.
Click to expand...
I presented the actuals of the matter .. and you respond with an activist's specious rally points exemplified by your lack of any attempt to understand the valid perspective of your opponents.

Seriously, it would be well with both sides if they not continue to engender animosity in the other, and work together to accomplish the real goals of each.
 
Re: If a man states I favor tradiional marriage does that make him a bigot or a homop

Ontologuy said:
I presented the actuals of the matter .. and you respond with an activist's specious rally points exemplified by your lack of any attempt to understand the valid perspective of your opponents.

Seriously, it would be well with both sides if they not continue to engender animosity in the other, and work together to accomplish the real goals of each.
Click to expand...

Your "actuals" included the assertion that opponents of SSM are "much, much greater" in number than proponents of it. That's a demonstrably false assertion.

Half of Americans Support Legal Gay Marriage
Majority of Americans support legalizing same-sex marriage, poll shows | The Ticket - Yahoo! News
New Poll: Americans Increase Support Of Marriage Equality to 54%
After President Obama’s announcement, opposition to gay marriage hits record low - The Washington Post
http://www.langerresearch.com/uploads/1137a2GayMarriage.pdf
USA TODAY/Gallup poll: 51% agree with Obama's gay marriage endorsement

How is stating a statistically verified fact a specious rally point?

I would try to understand the valid perspective of people who want to stop something that won't affect them in anyway, and for which they have no rational or logical reason to oppose it.

And while I'm not a philosopher or anything, I would wager that people who want marriage to include same-sex couples, and those who do not, might not have mutually achievable goals.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom