• 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
once again you prove you dont know what a strawman is and it further exposes the failure of your post and claim. This is becoming common place with your posts.

I know exactly what it is. Someone attributing claims to me that I never made, and then arguing to me against those claims instead of addressing anything that I ever actually said, is a textbook example.
 
I know exactly what it is. Someone attributing claims to me that I never made, and then arguing to me against those claims instead of addressing anything that I ever actually said, is a textbook example.

correct that WOULD be a strawman to bad you thats not what happened
your very own posts PROVE your statements wrong and that his post is factually not a strawman lol
all one has to do is scroll through the thread to see this fact. Thank you for further proving that your claims of a strawman are 100% false.

If you like i could directly quote your posts proving your claims of a strawman wrong . . .

but my guess is this wont be necessary because you know the claims you made were dishonest and factually wrong

let me know . . thanks
 
Last edited:
No, no - you stated that marriage has always been between man and woman - man and women is definitely not the same thing. That makes your claim about the unchanging nature of marriage clearly wrong.

Calling it irrelevant because it proves your claim wrong only makes you look like an even more ignorant adherent of the bible. Remember, your statement is that marriage has remained unchanged and has been defined by 1 man and 1 woman. That is proven false by the fact that polygamous marriages existed. Hell, polygamy in the Bible demonstrates that historically marriage wasn't a static institution that couldn't be changed in accordance with social norm.

You are (obviously deliberately) twisting my words into meanings that I obviously didn't intend, and even putting words in my mouth that I never said.

Marriage always has been, and always will be, only between a man and a woman.

Polygamy is not an exception to this. The only difference between polygamy and monogamy is that under a polygamous arrangement, one may be in more than one marriage. Even in such an arrangement, no marriage is ever between two men or two women. If you are going to claim that the Bible disagrees with me, then kindly produce some references therefrom to instances of a man being married to another man, or a woman being married to another woman; or even anything that suggests that such a thing is possible.
 
Then if someone opposed blacks getting married or interfaith weddings or interracial marriages, then it's ok for than to refuse service to than as well?

Been over this. No.
 
1.)You are (obviously deliberately) twisting my words into meanings that I obviously didn't intend, and even putting words in my mouth that I never said.
2.) Marriage always has been, and always will be, only between a man and a woman.
3.) Polygamy is not an exception to this. The only difference between polygamy and monogamy is that under a polygamous arrangement, one may be in more than one marriage. Even in such an arrangement, no marriage is ever between two men or two women. If you are going to claim that the Bible disagrees with me, then kindly produce some references therefrom to instances of a man being married to another man, or a woman being married to another woman; or even anything that suggests that such a thing is possible.

1.) this was never done
2.) not only is this statement factually false it is the exact statement that is wrong even by your own false, subjective and meaningless biblically standards
even by those false and meaningless standards marriage was between MEN and WOMEN, plural. And your statement FACTUALLY does not say that.
3.) already proven, your statement above is false and now back peddling and ADDING to it wont change its falsehood.

like it was already said and proven, your statement if wrong in reality and by youe own meaningless subjective standards and your claim of a strawman was also 100% wrong. Thank you for making that wrong statement again for an example.
 
Been over this. No.

seems your views are inconsistent, please clarify
are you claiming that in you opinion illegal discrimination and violation of rights is wrong against race and or religion but ok against sexual orientation?

and please notice, its a QUESTION, not an accusation.
 
You are (obviously deliberately) twisting my words into meanings that I obviously didn't intend, and even putting words in my mouth that I never said.

Nonsense. You claimed marriage has always between man and woman. You meant that marriage has always been both a heterosexual activity, and a monogamous activity. That is entirely false and refutes the claim that marriage hasn't changed to reflect the values of the time.
 
seems your views are inconsistent, please clarify
are you claiming that in you opinion illegal discrimination and violation of rights is wrong against race and or religion but ok against sexual orientation?

and please notice, its a QUESTION, not an accusation.

Sorry, I keep gong over the same thing with different people. I'm done. Go back through this topic and read it if you are really interested.
 
Sorry, I keep gong over the same thing with different people. I'm done. Go back through this topic and read it if you are really interested.

i read this whole thread and thats why i have the question i do, your stances "seems" unclear and "seems" very inconsistent.
 
Which ones are examples of bigotry?





Can someone please fix the spelling in the question? Thank you.




Anyone who is intolerant towards those who have a different opinion is a bigot.


Those who think that they're not bigots because they're right and everyone else is wrong are the biggest bigots.

There are lot of people like that on this website and they're all 100% sure that they're right.

I'm not going to name them, but they stick out like sore thumbs.
 
Last edited:
Been over this. No.

If it iis not okay for someone to use their religious beliefs against interracial couples, interfaith couples, atheist couples or couples of a certain race or religion getting married and to deny them service, then there is no reason that it should be okay to be able to use religious beliefs against a same sex couple (or particularly an opposite sex couple) to deny services to them, even for a wedding. It is all bigotry and all violates public accommodation laws, at least when in particular states that cover those particular classifications.
 
Assume a person who hates homosexuals with a vengeance owns a small duplex and occupies one of the units. Can he be forced by law to rent the other unit to homosexuals, such that he's constantly made aware of whatever activities are taking place on the other side of the common wall? After all, he is engaging in business by renting housing for profit. And if he's renting a room in his house, same answer? Does every person who engages in any transaction that involves commerce, to any degree, waive his freedoms of association, speech, and privacy by doing so?

What about an artist who paints portraits for a living and detests homosexuality as sinful? If a homosexual couple asks him to paint a portrait of them, partially clothed and locked in a fond embrace, can a public accommodation law require him to do it? How about a criminal lawyer who hates homosexuals--should he be considered a public accommodation, so that he has to defend a homosexual client who requests it? If you didn't know, the state public accommodation law at issue in Roberts v. Jaycees applied to "any business." Should only people you and your friends like have constitutional rights? Shouldn't icky haters be punished for daring not to approve of everything good so-called liberals have deemed noble and wonderful?

Yes, he can be made by law to that or face penalties. If he doesn't want to rent to people he might have an issue with, then he needs not open his duplex up to be rented to the public.
 
Yes, he can be made by law to that or face penalties. If he doesn't want to rent to people he might have an issue with, then he needs not open his duplex up to be rented to the public.

Really? The law of which state? Please tell us how a state law that required the things I mentioned would respect the freedom of association and the freedom of speech, both of which the First Amendment guarantees.

Are you claiming a state could make lawyers who were sole practitioners public accommodations, so that they could be penalized for declining to take every client in a protected category who wanted their services?

Are you claiming a state could make artists public accommodations, so that a painter could be penalized if he did not accept commissions from every such client--even ones who demanded to be portrayed in ways the painter considered immoral or disgusting?

How about a family with children at home whose religion considers homosexuality deeply sinful? Could the homeowners be penalized for refusing to rent a room in their house to a homosexual? Maybe the law should also require them to let the homosexual tenant share their kitchen and bathroom, or host gay parties.

How about a private book club with a couple dozen members that collects dues? What if it regularly hosts book signings at the members' homes where authors speak and sell their books, with a small percentage of the money going to the club? Wouldn't that make it a "business"? It the state law considered every business" a public accommodation, could the club be penalized for refusing to admit homosexual members?

I think the Supreme Court's decisions suggest state public accommodation laws do not have the limitless reach you seem to imagine. At some point these laws intrude so far on individual freedoms as to violate constitutional rights.

Two decisions in particular discuss both the expressive and intimate subtypes of the freedom of association, and how that freedom applies to state public accommodation laws--Roberts v. United States Jaycees and Boy Scouts of America v. Dale.

The freedom of speech applies to all sorts of creative expression, and it includes an individual's freedom not to be compelled by government to express or sanction ideas he does not agree with. Supreme Court decisions on government-compelled speech include West Virginia Board of Education v. Barnette, Wooley v. Maynard, and Pruneyard Shopping Center v. Robins, in particular what Justice Powell said in his concurring opinion.
 
Nonsense. You claimed marriage has always between man and woman. You meant that marriage has always been both a heterosexual activity, and a monogamous activity. That is entirely false and refutes the claim that marriage hasn't changed to reflect the values of the time.

I never claimed that it was always monogamous.

My claim is that marriage always has been, and can only ever be, between a man and a woman. I have never claimed that a man cannot be married to more than one woman, nor that a woman cannot be married to more than one man. Polygamy—while not practiced nor allowed in our current culture—has a solid Biblical and historical precedent. “Same sex marriage” does not.
 
Is Obama more political than Republican politicians?

Maybe some Republican politicians are actually not staunchly against SSM, but it's a pretty core Republican belief due to the Christian Right. Do you think for example that Santorum doesn't believe in SSM for political reasons? That's the rub, a lot of Republicans expand on their beliefs around SSM and the language is very bigoted.
 
Being against SSM is to be a bigot. Fact.
 
It absolutely is bigotry. Lets just call it what it is. Its bigotry. I
 
Maybe some Republican politicians are actually not staunchly against SSM, but it's a pretty core Republican belief due to the Christian Right. Do you think for example that Santorum doesn't believe in SSM for political reasons? That's the rub, a lot of Republicans expand on their beliefs around SSM and the language is very bigoted.
I have almost no respect for politicians. Few if any of them have core values. My vote is based on how I expect them to vote, and sometimes they lie about that too.
 
Depends on WHY they oppose it.

The actual reason, not what they claim as the reason.

Basically if it's "because gays are icky and I don't want marriage associated with them", or something equivalent, then yes.
 
Which ones are examples of bigotry?

Can someone please fix the spelling in the question? Thank you.

Being sane does not make one a bigot.
 
You don't have to be insane to support SSM. This is an anti-hyperbole thread.

You also don't have to be insane to believe the world is flat.

But both are an insane sort of belief, even if the people holding them aren't necessarily so.
 
Being against SSM is to be a bigot. Fact.

A person might favor same-sex marriage in his own state, and yet defend the right of people in other states not to allow it. I am not particularly concerned whether my own state authorizes same-sex marriage, or whether some other state does, or not. My concern is their right to decide the issue for themselves, and not to have a Supreme Court decision cook up a new constitutional "right" and force it on the whole country. The Court did that forty years ago in Roe v. Wade, which every constitutional scholar in the U.S. knows is one of the most arbitrary, irrational, result-oriented decisions the Supreme Court has ever made.
 
You also don't have to be insane to believe the world is flat.

But both are an insane sort of belief, even if the people holding them aren't necessarily so.
Wait....you're saying that support of SSM is an insane position?
 
Back
Top Bottom