• 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
Both, of course. Yet not everyone remains bigoted in their views forever. I surely would not call Obama a bigot today. Not so for most Republicans, unfortunately.
 
Hatuey said:
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:



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.
Click to expand...

Buh-bye.
 
Lakryte said:
Both, of course. Yet not everyone remains bigoted in their views forever. I surely would not call Obama a bigot today. Not so for most Republicans, unfortunately.
Click to expand...

Liked for accuracy. The point of this thread is the old I have (imaginary) black friends, I can't be racist forum nonsense displayed by some members on this board. Only the difference is that now, it's pointing to Obama in the hopes that if they hide behind his dated opinion on the matter, they won't be called bigots. That's what this boils down to. A whole bunch of people opposed to SSM for whatever reason, not wanting to admit that their contribution to the anti-SSM agenda is in the same camp as people defined as bigots. It's like when anti-second amendment people declare that they're not against guns because they're scared of them, they're against them because children may get their hands on them. There is absolutely no difference in the results the stances provide or the reasons behind them. In both cases, a right/privilege/benefit is denied.

Now, there are people who want the government to get out marriage recognition. Why? If anything, the government recognizing marriage has a longer history than one man one woman. Government recognition of marriage has been around for millennia. It has been around for religious and secular reasons (census, legal status, property rights). That's not going to change. There's no point in it changing. If anything, it would be more costly (for both citizens, government and legal scholars) to get the government out of marriage, than to simply maintain the status quo. However, with that on the table, there are people who persist that their ideas on what the government should and shouldn't be involved in is part of the debate. It really isn't. The regulations and laws for marriage have been established and aren't going away, the debate is now about who will get recognized and who won't.
 
IMO there's a difference between objecting to SSM...which is a valued and often religious tradition with a meaningful historic definition for some people...and a prejudice against or hate for gays.
 
Hatuey said:
Liked for accuracy. The point of this thread is the old I have (imaginary) black friends, I can't be racist forum nonsense displayed by some members on this board. Only the difference is that now, it's pointing to Obama in the hopes that if they hide behind his dated opinion on the matter, they won't be called bigots. That's what this boils down to. A whole bunch of people opposed to SSM for whatever reason, not wanting to admit that their contribution to the anti-SSM agenda is in the same camp as people defined as bigots. It's like when anti-second amendment people declare that they're not against guns because they're scared of them, they're against them because children may get their hands on them. There is absolutely no difference in the results the stances provide or the reasons behind them. In both cases, a right/privilege/benefit is denied.

Now, there are people who want the government to get out marriage recognition. Why? If anything, the government recognizing marriage has a longer history than one man one woman. Government recognition of marriage has been around for millennia. It has been around for religious and secular reasons (census, legal status, property rights). That's not going to change. There's no point in it changing. If anything, it would be more costly (for both citizens, government and legal scholars) to get the government out of marriage, than to simply maintain the status quo. However, with that on the table, there are people who persist that their ideas on what the government should and shouldn't be involved in is part of the debate. It really isn't. The regulations and laws for marriage have been established and aren't going away, the debate is now about who will get recognized and who won't.
Click to expand...
Agreed. I am sympathetic to the view that government should get out of marriage, and if that were something with serious potential of happening I would be all for it. In the mean time, however, expanding marriage rights to same-sex couples is the best choice. As much as I would love government out of marriage, I have the common sense to know that isn't something that is going to change. In fact, anyone who supports getting government out of marriage but then votes against same-sex marriage is, in my opinion, just using the "get government out of marriage" argument as a cover for simply being against same-sex marriage. Those who truly think the best option is to get government out of marriage would not have a problem with expanding marriage to same-sex couples.
 
Hatuey said:
Liked for accuracy. The point of this thread is the old I have (imaginary) black friends, I can't be racist forum nonsense displayed by some members on this board. Only the difference is that now, it's pointing to Obama in the hopes that if they hide behind his dated opinion on the matter, they won't be called bigots. That's what this boils down to. A whole bunch of people opposed to SSM for whatever reason, not wanting to admit that their contribution to the anti-SSM agenda is in the same camp as people defined as bigots. It's like when anti-second amendment people declare that they're not against guns because they're scared of them, they're against them because children may get their hands on them. There is absolutely no difference in the results the stances provide or the reasons behind them. In both cases, a right/privilege/benefit is denied.

Now, there are people who want the government to get out marriage recognition. Why? If anything, the government recognizing marriage has a longer history than one man one woman. Government recognition of marriage has been around for millennia. It has been around for religious and secular reasons (census, legal status, property rights). That's not going to change. There's no point in it changing. If anything, it would be more costly (for both citizens, government and legal scholars) to get the government out of marriage, than to simply maintain the status quo. However, with that on the table, there are people who persist that their ideas on what the government should and shouldn't be involved in is part of the debate. It really isn't. The regulations and laws for marriage have been established and aren't going away, the debate is now about who will get recognized and who won't.
Click to expand...

Unfortunately, you have a lot of people, mostly Libertarians, who have little grasp on reality, they want things that are not realistic to want, as a means of getting around the discussion instead of actually taking part in the discussion. Given that there is no chance in hell whatsoever of the government getting out of the marriage business, they'd rather just not deal with that fact, they'd rather pretend that they can play both sides of the fence and not have to deal with actual marriage equality, they want to pretend that anyone is going to take them seriously about the government not being involved in marriage so they don't have to be criticized for being against gay marriage.

And they also think everyone doesn't see straight through their nonsense.
 
Lursa said:
IMO there's a difference between objecting to SSM...which is a valued and often religious tradition with a historic definition for some people...and a prejudice against or hate for gays.
Click to expand...
Holding onto a tradition of prejudice is bigoted regardless of how valued, religious, or historical that tradition may be.
 
Lakryte said:
Agreed. I am sympathetic to the view that government should get out of marriage, and if that were something with serious potential of happening I would be all for it. In the mean time, however, expanding marriage rights to same-sex couples is the best choice. As much as I would love government out of marriage, I have the common sense to know that isn't something that is going to change. In fact, anyone who supports getting government out of marriage but then votes against same-sex marriage is, in my opinion, just using the "get government out of marriage" argument as a cover for simply being against same-sex marriage. Those who truly think the best option is to get government out of marriage would not have a problem with expanding marriage to same-sex couples.
Click to expand...

Stop it, if you point out that the government getting out of marriage is not realistic and won't happen anytime soon, people get angrier. They get angrier if you point out that their actions against the government's role in marriage have the same effect as simply being opposed to SSM for religious reasons. Nobody likes being called a bigot.
 
Cephus said:
Unfortunately, you have a lot of people, mostly Libertarians, who have little grasp on reality, they want things that are not realistic to want, as a means of getting around the discussion instead of actually taking part in the discussion. Given that there is no chance in hell whatsoever of the government getting out of the marriage business, they'd rather just not deal with that fact, they'd rather pretend that they can play both sides of the fence and not have to deal with actual marriage equality, they want to pretend that anyone is going to take them seriously about the government not being involved in marriage so they don't have to be criticized for being against gay marriage.

And they also think everyone doesn't see straight through their nonsense.
Click to expand...
A sincere libertarian would support same-sex marriage as the second best option to getting government out of marriage. The problem is a lot of tea party conservatives think they are libertarians (when they are not) and are adopting libertarian arguments as a cover for their own bigotry.
 
Lakryte said:
Holding onto a tradition of prejudice is bigoted regardless of how valued, religious, or historical that tradition may be.
Click to expand...

I disagree but not by much. I see a difference in how someone thinks and if they actually act against it, like voting for example. Just because they 'personally' hold that tradition a certain way, view it 'their way,' doesn't mean they are bigoted against others.

If someone disagrees with girls joining the Boy Scouts, are they bigoted against women?
 
ecofarm said:
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.
Click to expand...

I'm sorry but a degree in sociology is nothing to get charged up about. It doesn't make you smart and in fact more often than not leads to a career that has something to do with french fries, so don't break your arm patting yourself on the back.
 
sawdust said:
I'm sorry but a degree in sociology is nothing to get charged up about. It doesn't make you smart and in fact more often than not leads to a career that has something to do with french fries, so don't break your arm patting yourself on the back.
Click to expand...

I'll tell you what it does make: me informed and your position full of ****.
 
tres borrachos said:
Again an incorrect definition of "conservative". You just posted that conservatism is defined by church teachings. Not so.

You need to stop confusing conservatives with people who follow religion.
Click to expand...

Maybe I do, and maybe I'm guilty of trolling a couple prominent conservative posters here.
 
tres borrachos said:
You're confusing conservatives with religious believers. I'm a conservative. I don't oppose SSM or other similar laws.
Click to expand...

See, you're doing it again. You say, "I'm conservative and/but..." and then you express a liberal value. I think you're a closet liberal, that's what I think. Hey, there's no shame in it! 'Liberal', despite what some say, doesn't mean socialist or 'statist' or welfare-state apologist or any of those other slanderous boogeymen that conservatives (okay, some conservatives) want to apply.
 
Grand Mal said:
See, you're doing it again. You say, "I'm conservative and/but..." and then you express a liberal value. I think you're a closet liberal, that's what I think. Hey, there's no shame in it! 'Liberal', despite what some say, doesn't mean socialist or 'statist' or welfare-state apologist or any of those other slanderous boogeymen that conservatives (okay, some conservatives) want to apply.
Click to expand...

I'm Democrat and pretty liberal but I also hold some very conservative views. Doesn't make me a conservative.

IMO, to see them and practice them as completely black and white is damaging, rigid, and close-minded. Actually, to me it means someone *generally* isn't thinking for themselves.
 
ecofarm said:
I'll tell you what it does make: me informed and your position full of ****.
Click to expand...

I'll have a cheeseburger, hold the pickles and a side of onion rings.
 
sawdust said:
I'll have a cheeseburger, hold the pickles and a side of onion rings.
Click to expand...

Let's just be a bit more careful when we proclaim our superior knowledge. One never knows when an educated person is around and actually knows wtf they're talking about.
 
tres borrachos said:
I struggle with the use of the word "Bigotry". I don't like people who hunt ducks, but I'm not sure that makes me a bigot.
Click to expand...

The word is almost universally associated with not liking people due to race, skin color, gender, religion or sexual orientation... not duck hunters. ;)
 
sawdust said:
Just because you don't agree doesn't make it bigotry. Everyone discriminates, which is different than bigotry. I avoid rap concerts and tractor pulls. I discriminate. I don't know enough about you but I'm certain you discriminate as well. It's difficult to avoid based on personal preference. I'm not arguing for racial, ethnic or religious discrimination. That is and should be illegal. What I am saying is that we should be free to associate with who we wish. Likewise it's appropriate for the religious to make those associations based on their values.

Personally, I'm not religious. If I were a baker and a gay couple wanted a cake, I'd wrap them in fondant and plant a candle on top. I support those who don't feel as I do however.
Click to expand...

They have the right to not freely associate to their hearts content in a club or at home... a business open to the public though? They can not discriminate and it is and should be illegal.
 
ecofarm said:
Let's just be a bit more careful when we proclaim our superior knowledge. One never knows when an educated person is around and actually knows wtf they're talking about.
Click to expand...

I'm not the one who claimed superior knowledge Mr. I have a degree in sociology. I agree with you. Be more careful.
 
sawdust said:
I'm not the one who claimed superior knowledge Mr. I have a degree in sociology. I agree with you. Be more careful.
Click to expand...

Of course you did. You pretended that your ignorant and nihilist understanding of bigotry was more meaningful than a wet spot on a sidewalk. I corrected you. You claimed I don't know what I'm talking about, then I pointed out your lack of education and the sad fact that your position is nothing more than apologizing for bigotry. End of story. Good day.
 
Bodhisattva said:
They have the right to not freely associate to their hearts content in a club or at home... a business open to the public though? They can not discriminate and it is and should be illegal.
Click to expand...

I understand the law and agree with it regarding race, ethnicity and sex however at some point the rights of the business owner should be considered if there are religious objections which the business owner feels would compromise their religious values. Let them refuse to bake a cake or take a picture if they object to gay marriage. Then let the public decide if they want to support a business that makes that decision. That's the way free markets should work. Let people vote with their wallets.

I understand the law says something different. Doesn't make it right.
 
sawdust said:
I understand the law and agree with it regarding race, ethnicity and sex however at some point the rights of the business owner should be considered if there are religious objections which the business owner feels would compromise their religious values. Let them refuse to bake a cake or take a picture if they object to gay marriage. Then let the public decide if they want to support a business that makes that decision. That's the way free markets should work. Let people vote with their wallets.

I understand the law says something different. Doesn't make it right.
Click to expand...

Thanks for answering...

Gender. Various religions discriminate against women. Is it OK for a business to discriminate against women? If not, for religious reasons, then why is it OK to discriminate against gays?
 
ecofarm said:
Of course you did. You pretended that your ignorant and nihilist understanding of bigotry was more meaningful than a wet spot on a sidewalk. I corrected you. You claimed I don't know what I'm talking about, then I pointed out your lack of education and the sad fact that your position is nothing more than apologizing for bigotry. End of story. Good day.
Click to expand...


Nonsense. I told you that I disagreed with your definition of bigotry. Now you've resorted to name calling which pleases me because it shows the weakness of your presentation. Secondly, you know nothing about my education other than what I've shared with you. You aren't in a position to make judgements about anything I've said on an educational level because frankly, you don't know what you're talking about. With all the restraint I can muster, we disagree. I won't say what I really think out of respect for the rules of the board.
 
Bodhisattva said:
Thanks for answering...

Gender. Various religions discriminate against women. Is it OK for a business to discriminate against women? If not, for religious reasons, then why is it OK to discriminate against gays?
Click to expand...


I said sex, when I mentioned laws about discrimination. Feel free to replace sex with gender, men or women if it make my statement clearer. I never said that it was ok to discriminate against gays individually. There are religious objections to gay marriage and I can understand why some business owners feel that working on them violates their personal values.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom