• 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!

Is it bigotry when someone opposes SSM?

which ones are bigots?

  • Total voters
    65
tres borrachos said:
Yes, I think duck hunting should be illegal. I think deer hunting should remain legal. So yes, that would make me a duck hunter bigot. And therein lies the problem I have with the use of the word "bigot" when I made that post you quoted.
Click to expand...

For the situation to be equivalent you'd have to allow yourself to duck hunt, but say, black people can't. A desire to unequally apply the law based on a minority group's specific attribute is pretty much the definition of bigotry.

Feel free to rationalize or ignore it any way you want, but it doesn't really matter because society has pretty much already decided that equal rights are a good idea, and the younger generations (<40) are overwhelmingly in favor of SSM legalization.
 
sawdust said:
Again, you are confused about the definition of bigotry and using it too broadly.
Click to expand...

Bigotry apologism.

I seriously doubt that the person with grad sociology is the uneducated one here. I think it's probably the guy that claims bigotry motivated by religion is not bigotry at all.
 
Baralis said:
To sum up how I feel, I believe that any persons able to lawfully make a private contract should be able to chose whoever and how many they wish to make a contract with....
Click to expand...
Yeah, the problem is that marriage is NOT a private contract.

It's a social construction and act. Marriage also has numerous legal implications, including but not limited to:
• Who can manage your care if you're in the hospital
• Custody of children
• Ownership of joint property
• Inheritances

I don't see how it's a good idea to have all this managed via private contracts.


If a brother and sister wish to marry, if a woman wants to marry 48 men, heterosexual/homosexual or a mix or whatever isnt my business....
Click to expand...
...but it is the business of the State, whose job is to prevent harm to others. As such, I'm pretty sure we can regard condoning incest and polygamy as harmful.

SSM, we should note, has not been shown to cause any genuine harm. Assumptions of such, without the supporting evidence, are another example of the bigotry involved in the issue.


I am personally tired of other people/government trying to dictate how other people should lives their lives or limit them in their ability to live whatever life they deem is right for themselves.
Click to expand...
Sucks to be you, then. There is nowhere you can go, and no society you can live in, where no one is going to tell no one else how to limit their lives, or allow radical individual freedom. Bummer, dude.
 
tres borrachos said:
Yes, I think duck hunting should be illegal. I think deer hunting should remain legal. So yes, that would make me a duck hunter bigot. And therein lies the problem I have with the use of the word "bigot" when I made that post you quoted.
Click to expand...

Is duck hunting a type of activity which defines other rights, privileges and benefits? For example, does duck hunting have anything to do with adoption? What about wealth inheritance? What about visitation rights? What issues does duck hunting affect other than hunting ducks? Do you not get to drive because you hunt ducks? Do you get denied doctor's visits for being a duck hunter? What are you denied by simply hunting ducks? If you oppose duck hunting, are you also denying them other rights as part of the debate? The fact that you'll answer no/none to every one of those questions should give you the biggest clue of all. That being that they're not the same thing. Quit muddying the issue with irrelevant comparisons.
 
ecofarm said:
Bigotry apologism.

I seriously doubt that the person with grad sociology is the uneducated one here. I think it's probably the guy that claims bigotry motivated by religion is not bigotry at all.
Click to expand...

I majored in sociology for a short time until I realized they taught too much opinion for my liking. I have opinions of my own and don't need to suck up someone else's misconceptions. You're the one making claims of religious bigotry. I'm only saying that each individual should be free to live his life expressing his religious values. You want to take a more totalitarian approach I feel sorry for you in a way.
 
rocket88 said:
Ironic coming from a Mormon. People of your faith literally died protecting their "right" to be polygamous, and now you're trying to say it's always been monogamous.

Here's a primer on what's been considered a valid marriage in the Bible.]
Click to expand...

GH1-Straw-Man.jpg
 
Hatuey said:
Is duck hunting a type of activity which defines other rights, privileges and benefits? For example, does duck hunting have anything to do with adoption? What about wealth inheritance? What about visitation rights? What issues does duck hunting affect other than hunting ducks? Do you not get to drive because you hunt ducks? Do you get denied doctor's visits for being a duck hunter? What are you denied by simply hunting ducks? If you oppose duck hunting, are you also denying them other rights as part of the debate? The fact that you'll answer no/none to every one of those questions should give you the biggest clue of all. That being that they're not the same thing. Quit muddying the issue with irrelevant comparisons.
Click to expand...

What on Earth are you babbling about?

The definition of "bigot" from Merriam Webster:

big·ot noun \ˈbi-gət\

: a person who strongly and unfairly dislikes other people, ideas, etc. : a bigoted person; especially : a person who hates or refuses to accept the members of a particular group (such as a racial or religious group)


Doctors, driving, wealth inheritance.....good grief. Stick to my post which was a debate on the definition of the word "bigot".
 
sawdust said:
I majored in sociology for a short time until I realized they taught too much opinion for my liking.
Click to expand...

Spare me the undergrad sob stories.
 
Bob Blaylock said:
edited picture
Click to expand...

you just proved you dont know what a strawman is, I notice you often make that claim when your false arguments are destroyed by posters
 
I agree with TB here - I find the use of bigotry to be misused in this case. Many people who oppose state sanctioned marriage, such as myself, oppose state sanctioned SSM equally while I have no such opposition or "hatred" towards any person based on their sexuality.

Saying someone is bigoted because they oppose SSM is like saying someone is bigoted because they oppose the IRS. Both are government institutions that many have little love or use for.
 
tres borrachos said:
What on Earth are you babbling about?

The definition of "bigot" from Merriam Webster:

big·ot noun \ˈbi-gət\

: a person who strongly and unfairly dislikes other people, ideas, etc. : a bigoted person; especially : a person who hates or refuses to accept the members of a particular group (such as a racial or religious group)


Doctors, driving, wealth inheritance.....good grief. Stick to my post which was a debate on the definition of the word "bigot".
Click to expand...

I pointed out that none of your examples make any sense. Duck hunting has no effects on any other aspect of a person's life other than hunting. Homosexuality covers a wide scope of issues in the same manner race and religion do. That's why your comparisons are absolutely ridiculous. Hunting isn't a lifestyle in any sense of the word. It has no effect on your legal rights. Using it as a part of an argument for why people who oppose SSM shouldn't be called bigots is absolute nonsense and completely misunderstands what the meaning of bigotry is.
 
CanadaJohn said:
I agree with TB here - I find the use of bigotry to be misused in this case. Many people who oppose state sanctioned marriage, such as myself, oppose state sanctioned SSM equally while I have no such opposition or "hatred" towards any person based on their sexuality.

Saying someone is bigoted because they oppose SSM is like saying someone is bigoted because they oppose the IRS. Both are government institutions that many have little love or use for.
Click to expand...

Another ridiculous argument. Opposition to the IRS has no effect on another person's rights, privileges and benefits. Opposition to SSM does.
 
Hatuey said:
Another ridiculous argument. Opposition to the IRS has no effect on another person's rights, privileges and benefits.
Click to expand...

It's foolish to think that the IRS doesn't wield great power as it relates to citizens' rights, privileges and benefits.

But thank you, once again, for being DP's prime and sole judge of the value of opinions. It's a heavy burden you carry.
 
CanadaJohn said:
It's foolish to think that the IRS doesn't wield great power as it relates to citizens' rights, privileges and benefits.
Click to expand...

And yet, by being opposed to the IRS you aren't denying anybody's rights, privileges and benefits. Your argument is nonsense. The institutions aren't comparable. This ridiculous nonsense that governments should get out of an institution they have always presided over is just that. Nonsense. The government isn't getting out of marriage. Quit pretending like it's a reasonable stance and address the fact that as it stands, the discussion is about government recognition of same sex unions. That's it and there are zero non-religious reasons for the government to not recognize them. All religious reasons can remain in the church and churches can deny gays the right to marry if they so wish. Secular governments shouldn't. :shrug:
 
Hatuey said:
I pointed out that none of your examples make any sense. Duck hunting has no effects on any other aspect of a person's life other than hunting. Homosexuality covers a wide scope of issues in the same manner race and religion do. That's why your comparisons are absolutely ridiculous. Hunting isn't a lifestyle in any sense of the word. It has no effect on your legal rights. Using it as a part of an argument for why people who oppose SSM shouldn't be called bigots is absolute nonsense and completely misunderstands what the meaning of bigotry is.
Click to expand...

"None of my examples"? I gave 1 example. I applied the definition of "bigot" to it.

I'm pro-SSM. You're barking up the wrong tree with your pontificating. This isn't a discussion about gay rights and whether SSM should be legal or not, or why. Pay attention to the OP and my post, and carry on with someone else.
 
tres borrachos said:
"None of my examples"? I gave 1 example. I applied the definition of "bigot" to it.
Click to expand...

Yawn:

tres borrachos said:
Yeah, you said it better than I did. I used the example of duck hunters but when applying it to politics or a law, it's the same thing. I think we overuse "bigotry" and that's wrong. People have reasons to oppose (insert something here), and their reasons may be unpopular, but that doesn't make them bigots by the definition of the word that I always knew.

People are stubborn on both sides of an issue, too.
Click to expand...

Again, your example is nonsense.

I'm pro-SSM. You're barking up the wrong tree with your pontificating. This isn't a discussion about gay rights and whether SSM should be legal or not, or why. Pay attention to the OP and my post, and carry on with someone else.
Click to expand...

I did and I think your example for why people shouldn't be called bigots for being opposed to SSM is nonsense. Bigotry is defined by being in opposition to a group because of a characteristic defining a lifestyle, culture or ethnic quality. Race, gender, sexual attraction, religion are all characteristics which define lifestyles, culture and in some cases ethnicity. As such, opposition to any of them for whatever convoluted reason is bigotry. For example, if Christians (remember, Christianity like homosexuality is a lifestyle ;) ) weren't allowed to have churches, would that be considered bigotry? Of course it would be. The reasons behind it are irrelevant. It's a way to restrict the rights and privileges of a group. Turning the conversation into nonsense about whether the reasons define bigot is sophistry.
 
sawdust said:
Thanks for your input. It's been amusing.
Click to expand...

I once majored in sociology for a little bit!! That definitely puts me on par with an MSc and PhD(c) including sociology!

Yeah, I'm the one with an incorrect conception of bigotry. Sure, buddy.
 
Hatuey said:
Yawn:



Again, your example is nonsense.



I did and I think your example for why people shouldn't be called bigots for being opposed to SSM is nonsense. Bigotry is defined by being in opposition to a group because of a characteristic defining a lifestyle, culture or ethnic quality. Race, gender, sexual attraction, religion are all characteristics which define lifestyles, culture and in some cases ethnicity. As such, opposition to any of them for whatever convoluted reason is bigotry. For example, if Christians (remember, Christianity like homosexuality is a lifestyle ;) ) weren't allowed to have churches, would that be considered bigotry? Of course it would be. The reasons behind it are irrelevant. It's a way to restrict the rights and privileges of a group. Turning the conversation into nonsense about whether the reasons define bigot is sophistry.
Click to expand...

Once again, the discussion was about the word "bigotry". You consider it bigotry. I don't. I used the Merriam Webster definition. You have your own. I don't care what your definition is.

Find someone else to debate the issue of Christianity, etc. I'm not against SSM. Your pontifications are boring me.
 
tres borrachos said:
Once again, the discussion was about the word "bigotry". You consider it bigotry. I don't. I used the Merriam Webster definition. You have your own. I don't care what your definition is.
Click to expand...

And the Webster definition of it also includes gays by the fact that it says acceptance of other groups. What do you think gays constitute? A singularity?
 
Hatuey said:
And the Webster definition of it also includes gays by the fact that it says acceptance of other groups. What do you think gays constitute? A singularity?
Click to expand...

Duck hunters are a group too, unless you think there is only one duck hunter in the country.

Now go bother someone else. I've already indulge you with too much of my attention today.
 
Hatuey said:
And yet, by being opposed to the IRS you aren't denying anybody's rights, privileges and benefits. Your argument is nonsense. The institutions aren't comparable. This ridiculous nonsense that governments should get out of an institution they have always presided over is just that. Nonsense. The government isn't getting out of marriage. Quit pretending like it's a reasonable stance and address the fact that as it stands, the discussion is about government recognition of same sex unions. That's it and there are zero non-religious reasons for the government to not recognize them. All religious reasons can remain in the church and churches can deny gays the right to marry if they so wish. Secular governments shouldn't. :shrug:
Click to expand...

Your posts are emotional and irrational. I don't give a rat's ass about who marries whom and there isn't a single rational reason in 21st century first world nations for the government to be in any kind of marriage business, period. The only reason for the SSM equality push is because everybody wants their piece of the government goodies pie and it's my position that nobody should get government benefit based on being married, regardless of the nature of the union. You want to get married, do it in a church or go to your lawyer and enter into a marriage contract.
 
CanadaJohn said:
Your posts are emotional and irrational.
Click to expand...

Says the guy who is desperately trying to pretend that this discussion is about anything other than recognition of gay unions by governments. It isn't. :shrug:

I don't give a rat's ass about who marries whom and there isn't a single rational reason in 21st century first world nations for the government to be in any kind of marriage business, period. The only reason for the SSM equality push is because everybody wants their piece of the government goodies pie and it's my position that nobody should get government benefit based on being married, regardless of the nature of the union. You want to get married, do it in a church or go to your lawyer and enter into a marriage contract.
Click to expand...

Utter nonsense. The government is in charge of contract recognition at all levels. That's one of the explicitly laid out of goals of a government. It enforces marriage contracts the same way it does business contracts, adoption contracts, licensing contracts etc. Should the government get out of those too? No. Of course it shouldn't. It's always been involved in them and that's not going to change any time soon. So as it stands, the discussion centers around whether or not the government should recognize gay marriage. It's not going to stop recognizing marriage. Get used to it and stop trying to steer the debate in a direction it never has had any traction in.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom