• 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!

Can a person be against Gay Marriage and not be a bigot?

Can a person be anti Gay marriage and not be a bigot?


  • Total voters
    70
I voted 'no', but with some explanation. There is no legitimate reason to oppose gay marriage. Denying gay people marriage rights hurts gays and has no impact whatsoever on heterosexuals. So, supporting gay marriage bans could not be motivated by anything other than a desire to hurt gay people. That is clear cut bigotry.

That said, I do believe that there are people out there who haven't thought the topic through all the way through. So, I guess opposition to gay marriage could be motivated by ignorance rather than bigotry, but with a big issue like this that directly effects people's lives and deals with fundamental principals of our constitution and whatnot people have a deep obligation to educate themselves about it.
 
Yes! , but its difficult..
I feel that a man can be bigoted and not know it.
I attach standards to marriage, I consider it to be nigh sacred, not something to be treated without respect or to be altered to suit the changing times.
Back in the day, the homosexuals were hiding in the closets (not that I blame them either), and people were much more economical with their writing than they are today.
No one wrote " a marriage is a pact between a man and a woman", the latter part was omitted, people just knew, it was just accepted.
Details, millions of them, would come later..
I may well change my mind before I die, right now I have a dislike of the militant homosexual, they have made so many gains, now they should be grateful and give society a break to catch up...
You can call this whatever you want.:mrgreen:
 
Stop. Your argument is ridiculous and does not help. A 9 year old cannot consent to marriage. A coma patient cannot consent to marriage. A chihuahua cannot consent to marriage. You are choosing irrelevant examples that do NOT fit the circumstances.
In some societies, "consent" means nothing, this may even apply to ours. Marriage should be between two humans of opposite sex.

A union of two or more can be for just about anything. Lets have this for the man and his dog; or for two homosexuals.

Lets keep marriage as it is, between a man and a woman....is that so hard ?
 
Then the vast majority of Americans are (by your definition) bigoted. The big question is why people should care. It's kind of stupid way to think of bigotry.

All you have to do is look at the history of America and you will see that overall we are a very bigoted country.
 
Why is it that some people feel entitled to certain rights and privileges while feeling justified in denying those same right/privileges to others?

Are you talking about congress? I agree if you are. Get rid of them! They have a ratio of rich like 40 times above the norm. It is a direct conflict of interest to be creating the laws making you rich.
 
I am asking the people who are pro gay marriage this question..........

I am not pro-gay marriage but I still am going to state my opinion on the issue. I say yes a person can be against gay marriage and not a bigot, it doesn't mean that person hates gays. Bigotry can exist on both sides. Bigotry is merely the intolerance of any differing belief,creed or opinion and many pro-homosexuals and pro-gay marriage people fit that definition. So many of them are just as bigoted as those they call a bigoted.
 
Are you talking about congress? I agree if you are. Get rid of them! They have a ratio of rich like 40 times above the norm. It is a direct conflict of interest to be creating the laws making you rich.

I speaking of anyone who believes that they are somehow entitled to rights/privileges while believing that they are somehow justified in denying those same rights/privileges to others.

Our Country's history is full of examples of this...but eventually America comes around to get it right.
 
Why not? If an entire society supports prison or death for homosexuals, the entire society is bigoted, easy as that.

Um, prison/death for homosexuality is not the same thing as opposing same-sex marriage.

Such as? Besides the ones cap mentioned

I don't know what Orius was referring to but here's some copypasta from an argument I had on Facebook:

Basically, that deciding to change the definition of something that has been the same for its whole existence of thousands of years opens up a can of worms wherein people can suddenly make marriage whatever they want it to be, such as incest, polygamy, bestiality, etc. In other words, that traditional society, which has been slowly evolving to better fit human needs for a long long time, is a more reliable source than a bunch of people arbitrarily morphing an institution because they think their way is better. I happen to disagree with parts of this argument, but it's certainly more compelling than "God hates fags".
 
Um, prison/death for homosexuality is not the same thing as opposing same-sex marriage.

I know, I was responding to "Gay marriage wasn't even an issue until very recently. I somehow doubt that everyone who existed before the mere possibility of allowing gays to marry came up were bigots." I'm saying that entire society were bigoted. Do you disagree?


I don't know what Orius was referring to but here's some copypasta from an argument I had on Facebook:

Basically, that deciding to change the definition of something that has been the same for its whole existence of thousands of years opens up a can of worms wherein people can suddenly make marriage whatever they want it to be, such as incest, polygamy, bestiality, etc. In other words, that traditional society, which has been slowly evolving to better fit human needs for a long long time, is a more reliable source than a bunch of people arbitrarily morphing an institution because they think their way is better. I happen to disagree with parts of this argument, but it's certainly more compelling than "God hates fags".

My main issue with that is that marriage has not been the same for thousands of years. Polygamy was the standard for quite a while, and where the woman and man fit into the relationship has changed over time too.
 
I voted 'no', but with some explanation. There is no legitimate reason to oppose gay marriage. Denying gay people marriage rights hurts gays and has no impact whatsoever on heterosexuals. So, supporting gay marriage bans could not be motivated by anything other than a desire to hurt gay people. That is clear cut bigotry.

That said, I do believe that there are people out there who haven't thought the topic through all the way through. So, I guess opposition to gay marriage could be motivated by ignorance rather than bigotry, but with a big issue like this that directly effects people's lives and deals with fundamental principals of our constitution and whatnot people have a deep obligation to educate themselves about it.

^^^^^^^ this
 
I know, I was responding to "Gay marriage wasn't even an issue until very recently. I somehow doubt that everyone who existed before the mere possibility of allowing gays to marry came up were bigots." I'm saying that entire society were bigoted. Do you disagree?

Well that's hard to say... I don't think we should apply modern judgments on past time periods... there's probably a lot of things that both you and I support that will be considered bigoted or barbaric or something in the future.

In 60 years, when gay marriage is legal everywhere, I might think of considering those who want to abolish it as bigots. For now, they just don't see why this issue has so suddenly arisen in the first place.

My main issue with that is that marriage has not been the same for thousands of years. Polygamy was the standard for quite a while, and where the woman and man fit into the relationship has changed over time too.

Western marriage, or at least marriage in Christian cultures, has been the same for thousands of years. The roles of the man and woman, assuming that's what you're talking about, have nothing to do with the definition of marriage itself.
 
Well that's hard to say... I don't think we should apply modern judgments on past time periods... there's probably a lot of things that both you and I support that will be considered bigoted or barbaric or something in the future.

In 60 years, when gay marriage is legal everywhere, I might think of considering those who want to abolish it as bigots. For now, they just don't see why this issue has so suddenly arisen in the first place.
Please explain to me how people historically WEREN'T bigoted towards gays. Either you're bigoted or you're not. There's no relativity here.


Western marriage, or at least marriage in Christian cultures, has been the same for thousands of years. The roles of the man and woman, assuming that's what you're talking about, have nothing to do with the definition of marriage itself.

Now you're redefining terms.
 
Please explain to me how people historically WEREN'T bigoted towards gays. Either you're bigoted or you're not. There's no relativity here.

They were bigoted by today's standards. And since there's no relativity, then if people of the future decide that some of our views today are bigoted, both of us are bigots.

"Either you're bigoted or you're not" is simplistic to the extreme.

Now you're redefining terms.

No, I'm just clarifying. Why should people care about the traditions of other cultures when it comes to their own traditions? When people talk about traditional marriage, they're talking about the tradition of their culture.
 
It is possible, there are, for instance, people who are against all marriages period. Those people are not bigots because they are not trying to give rights to one group of people while withholding them from others.

However, anyone who is attempting to set up a disparity in who can get legally married, or set up a "separate but equal" system is indeed a bigot.
 
In some societies, "consent" means nothing, this may even apply to ours. Marriage should be between two humans of opposite sex.

A union of two or more can be for just about anything. Lets have this for the man and his dog; or for two homosexuals.

Lets keep marriage as it is, between a man and a woman....is that so hard ?

Irrelevant. We are NOT talking about hypotheticals. We are discussing reality. And reality is that in none of those things he mentioned, can one of the parties give consent. In a homosexual union between two competent adults, both CAN. That is why his argument is illogical and does not apply.
 
Stop. Your argument is ridiculous and does not help. A 9 year old cannot consent to marriage. A coma patient cannot consent to marriage. A chihuahua cannot consent to marriage. You are choosing irrelevant examples that do NOT fit the circumstances.

I'm surprised he didn't bring up incest. That is a totally consensual situation.

All you have to do is look at the history of America and you will see that overall we are a very bigoted country.

Comments like this really make me wonder about the left's constant assertion that they are not anti-American.
 
You dont seem to be looking very hard. Wasnt there a vote on this recently? What were the viewpoints involved?

Last vote I saw was the Maine repeal, in which there were two major viewpoints: liberals and bigots. The former were disappointed because they wanted "equal rights" and "freedom", regardless of the consequences, and the latter were cheering because they seemed to think they were one step closer to gays "going away". Then there was the small contingent of libertarians who wanted government out of marriage entirely. (I'd say "regardless of the consequences" again here, but everything libertarians want is regardless of the consequences.) All in all, I'd say the argument itself was the perfect summary of everything that's wrong with democracy and why "the people" simply aren't fit to govern themselves.

As others have pointed out, there are sensible arguments for opposition to gay marriage. But instead of those arguments, we get a whole bunch of "it's just wrong" and unseemly preoccupation with buttsex.
 
Last edited:
I do not think being opposed to same-sex marriage necessarily makes someone a bigot. I think some people just want to preserve what they know to be true about marriage. Those are the rare breed though in the opposition to same-sex marriage, most just have something against gays and they express it through law.

What I never understood is why a person would feel they need to impose that on an entire population of people by promulgating it into law. Maybe their marriage should be put to a 50 + 1 vote. I bet there would be more than enough reason to dissolve their marriage.

Would heterosexuals be alright with having their marriage put to a vote by the people?
 
I am against it on religious moral grounds, but politically I think they should be allowed.

I am not bigoted against gay people, I am bigoted against the life style.
 
I speaking of anyone who believes that they are somehow entitled to rights/privileges while believing that they are somehow justified in denying those same rights/privileges to others.
.

Sooooo....congress.

All right.
 
I do not think being opposed to same-sex marriage necessarily makes someone a bigot. I think some people just want to preserve what they know to be true about marriage. Those are the rare breed though in the opposition to same-sex marriage, most just have something against gays and they express it through law.

What I never understood is why a person would feel they need to impose that on an entire population of people by promulgating it into law. Maybe their marriage should be put to a 50 + 1 vote. I bet there would be more than enough reason to dissolve their marriage.

Would heterosexuals be alright with having their marriage put to a vote by the people?

I like what you have done here. :mrgreen:
 
Call me whatever you like: Gay marriage is an absurd invention of the extreme left.

I didn't know the Extreme Left was in existence several thousand years ago when Pagan cultures openly practiced homosexual marriage. :rofl

Although conservatives are staunchly opposed to homosexuality on the grounds of it being irrefutably immoral, conservatives are not "anti-gay."

Correction: Social Conservatives are against that. The same kind of people who expand government to legislate morality within private homes. The same kind of people who got the FEDERAL GOVERNMENT into a strictly family dispute.

Conservatives believe that gays should not be discrimnated against, and should be allowed the basic rights afforded to normal people, but the idea that a man and a man can be called a "married couple" is so preposterous that one has to wonder at how insane liberal policy in American can go.

Because?

Marriage is a secular three way agreement between two spouses and the government. Or are you not to update about the rights and obligations within state marriage?

Next, I suppose liberals are going to be storming the streets for the right of animals to marry...:doh

Wow. Good luck here. You are going to need it if you rely upon obvious slippery slope arguments.
 
As others have pointed out, there are sensible arguments for opposition to gay marriage. But instead of those arguments, we get a whole bunch of "it's just wrong" and unseemly preoccupation with buttsex.

We mostly just hear the views (1) of people who speak the loudest, and (2) which are presented by the opposition in order to make the position look ignorant and bigoted.

I think that most people who are against gay marriage don't really know why they are against gay marriage, and thus don't speak out. That doesn't mean that they don't have legitimate concerns- and thanks admitting that those legitimate concerns exist.

What I never understood is why a person would feel they need to impose that on an entire population of people by promulgating it into law. Maybe their marriage should be put to a 50 + 1 vote. I bet there would be more than enough reason to dissolve their marriage.

Would heterosexuals be alright with having their marriage put to a vote by the people?

Changing a legal definition which has been used for thousands of years and was not even disputed until very recently should not happen until society itself has accepted it, i.e. has put it to a 50 + 1 vote.
 
Last edited:
Back
Top Bottom