• 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
ernst barkmann said:
when you mean harmed, ...you also mean forcing your ideas,a way of life on another person dont you........i am sure you do, but i just thought i would pose the question any way.
Click to expand...

No one is doing that. It is just a retarded talking point.
 
ernst barkmann said:
not what i mean, i am sure you would agree that if a person has a belief in what he does is OK, but another person thinks it wrong......the former cannot impose that belief on the latter.
Click to expand...

In a perfect world.
 
ecofarm said:
That's nice (and bigoted), but you clearly supported any bigotry whatsoever in your post:



That would include non-religious bigotry.
Click to expand...

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.
 
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...

So, do you only support religious bigotry or do you, as you stated, support any form of bigotry against gays. Do you support bigotry against everyone or just gays?
 
ttwtt78640 said:
Substitute any other law, say tax rate cuts for the rich, and see if the question of bigotry still makes sense. One can oppose a policy or law for many reasons; perhaps one wants marriage options to include polygamy or they oppose the state making any person receive different rights than others based on a special state granted relationship status. There can be many reasons to oppose a policy, law or idea that do not fit the definition of bigotry.
Click to expand...

But opposing same sex marriage is supporting a law against it. The question isn't, should we allow it, it's should we outlaw it.
Bigotry? Depends. Does someone want a law against SSM because it's against their religion, or because they don't like gays. If they're obeying their religion they're misguided but if they just don't like gays, they're bigoted.
 
Redress said:
One of those unpopular points I have made rather repeatedly is that calling people bigots for opposing SSM is not helpful. Not only is it not necessarily true(and there is no way to know usually if it is true), not only does it overuse and abuse the term(much like racist/anti-semite are so badly overused), but insulting the people you are trying to sway with your arguments does not usually work.
Click to expand...

In what situation is opposing marriage equality NOT bigotry? Can you name a situation where denying civil rights to minorities was not bigotry? Just curious.
 
Last edited:
Bob Blaylock said:
As an objective fact, “gays and lesbians” are deviants.

The normal, proper, common manner of human coupling, as practiced by (to use the most generous credible statistics toward homosexuality) more than 90% of the human population, is male with female. It is how our biology is engineered to work, it is how we are suited to form families and societies. By definition, anyone who deviates from this is a deviant. That's what the word “deviant” means—one who deviates from what is normal.

Of course, to those of you on the wrong, recognizing the plain, obvious truth, is “bigotry”. Really, that's the essential core of “Political Correctness”, to condemn truth as bigotry or some other similarly subversive form of thought, and on that basis, to condemn those who recognize or speak any truth that is thus deemed subversive.
Click to expand...

And it's the nature of conservatives to expect the government to make laws against whatever conservatives disapprove of. And let's not forget the people needed to enforce those laws. This is how conservatives champion less government interference- by advocating more laws, limits on personal liberties, more power for the authorities...
 
ecofarm said:
So, do you only support religious bigotry or do you, as you stated, support any form of bigotry against gays. Do you support bigotry against everyone or just gays?
Click to expand...

I reject your definition of bigotry. How's that? If I refused to serve Catholics, that would be religious bigotry. If a religious person choses to follow his faith, I'd say that's your problem evidently.
 
Grand Mal said:
And it's the nature of conservatives to expect the government to make laws against whatever conservatives disapprove of. And let's not forget the people needed to enforce those laws. This is how conservatives champion less government interference- by advocating more laws, limits on personal liberties, more power for the authorities...
Click to expand...

Which is why TRUE conservatives like Barry Goldwater argued in favor of smaller government and did not believe in impose huge government/big brother measures like the so-called "conservatives" of 2014.
 
sawdust said:
I reject your definition of bigotry. How's that? If I refused to serve Catholics, that would be religious bigotry. If a religious person choses to follow his faith, I'd say that's your problem evidently.
Click to expand...

So you're okay with all types of bigotry, whether against gays or blacks?
 
Redress said:
No, from any point of view.
Click to expand...


here is your statement again:

Redress said:
No one is doing that. It is just a retarded talking point.
Click to expand...

No one??

Judge orders ‘gay’ agenda taught to Christian children


A federal judge in Massachusetts has ordered the “gay” agenda taught to Christians who attend a public school in Massachusetts, finding that they need the teachings to be “engaged and productive citizens.”

U.S. District Judge Mark L. Wolf yesterday dismissed a civil rights lawsuit brought by David Parker, ordering that it is reasonable, indeed there is an obligation, for public schools to teach young children to accept and endorse homosexuality.

Read more at Judge orders ‘gay’ agenda taught to Christian children



Courts, Judges and Politics led by Mark Wolf



http://iop.harvard.edu/courts-judges-and-politics-led-mark-wolf


. March 6, 2013 - The Rights of Gays, Lesbians, Bisexuals and Transsexuals

The guest speaker will be Judge Wolf's former law clerk, Roberta Kaplan (Cosmopolitan Feature on Roberta Kaplan), Harvard '88, who recently successfully argued in the Supreme Court that the Defense of Marriage Act ("DOMA") is unconstitutional. In addition to discussion of the role of the courts concerning same-sex marriage, the session will draw on Judge Wolf's decisions finding that: the private organizers of Boston's St. Patrick's Day Parade had a First Amendment right to exclude a gay, lesbian, and bisexual group (case summary); religiously motivated parents did not have the right to exempt their children in elementary school from education about homosexuality and same-sex marriage (case summary); and ordering the Massachusetts Department of Corrections to provide sex reassignment surgery to a transsexual prisoner (case summary).
 
Last edited:
disneydude said:
Which is why TRUE conservatives like Barry Goldwater argued in favor of smaller government and did not believe in impose huge government/big brother measures like the so-called "conservatives" of 2014.
Click to expand...

Conservatives nowadays express liberal values- protect personal liberties, less government, limit the powers of the state, but when the rubber meets the road they come out for stronger government, more police powers, limits to personal liberties. The same sex marriage controversy is just one example. It's not enough for conservatives that their church won't allow it, they want the government to not allow it too.
Here's a secret that conservatives don't get- laws don't prevent anything.
 
Grand Mal said:
Conservatives nowadays express liberal values- protect personal liberties, less government, limit the powers of the state, but when the rubber meets the road they come out for stronger government, more police powers, limits to personal liberties. The same sex marriage controversy is just one example. It's not enough for conservatives that their church won't allow it, they want the government to not allow it too.
Here's a secret that conservatives don't get- laws don't prevent anything.
Click to expand...

liberals are not for ...... less government, limit the powers of the state, and they do not believe in the right of property or association.
 
ernst barkmann said:
liberals are not for ...... less government, limit the powers of the state, and they do not believe in the right of property or association.
Click to expand...

Oh yes they are and yes, they do. I've been liberal all my life and I know what the word means.
 
Grand Mal said:
Oh yes they are and yes, they do. I've been liberal all my life and I know what the word means.
Click to expand...

sorry wrong..... it is classical liberals who are for limited government, less government, how can less government be the social welfare state?

liberals do not respect right to property or association....they are for a collective society........not individualism.


Classical liberalism is a political philosophy and ideology belonging to liberalism in which primary emphasis is placed on securing the freedom of the individual by limiting the power of the government. The philosophy emerged as a response to the Industrial Revolution and urbanization in the 19th century in Europe and the United States.[1] It advocates civil liberties with a limited government under the rule of law, private property rights, and belief in laissez-faire economic liberalism.[2][3][4] Classical liberalism is built on ideas that had already arisen by the end of the 18th century, including ideas of Adam Smith, John Locke, Jean-Baptiste Say, Thomas Malthus, and David Ricardo. Its greatest expression as a political (as well as economic) philosophy in the 19th century was in the works of John Stuart Mill. It drew on a psychological understanding of individual liberty, natural law, utilitarianism, and a belief in progress.[5]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Classical_liberalism

Classical liberalism is a philosophy committed to the ideal of limited government and liberty of individuals including freedom of religion, speech, press, assembly, and free markets.[1]

Classical liberalism developed in the nineteenth century in Western Europe, and the Americas. Although classical liberalism built on ideas that had already developed by the end of the eighteenth century, it advocated a specific kind of society, government and public policy required as a result of the Industrial Revolution and urbanization.[2] Notable individuals who have contributed to classical liberalism include Jean-Baptiste Say, Thomas Malthus and David Ricardo.[3] It drew on the economics of Adam Smith, a psychological understanding of individual liberty, natural law and utilitarianism, and a belief in progress. Classical liberals established political parties that were called "liberal", although in the United States classical liberalism came to dominate both existing major political parties.[1] There was a revival of interest in classical liberalism in the twentieth century led by Friedrich Hayek and Milton Friedman.[4]

In the late 19th century, classical liberalism developed into neo-classical liberalism, which argued for government to be as small as possible in order to allow the exercise of individual freedom. In its most extreme form, it advocated Social Darwinism. Libertarianism is a modern form of neo-classical liberalism.[5]

The term classical liberalism was applied in retrospect to distinguish earlier nineteenth-century liberalism from the newer social liberalism.[6] The phrase classical liberalism is also sometimes used to refer to all forms of liberalism before the twentieth century, and some conservatives and libertarians use the term classical liberalism to describe their belief in the primacy of economic freedom and minimal government. It is not always clear which meaning is intended.[7][8][9]

http://www.princeton.edu/~achaney/tmve/wiki100k/docs/Classical_liberalism.html

What is Classical Liberalism? | Learn Liberty

 
Last edited:
ernst barkmann said:
sorry wrong..... it is classical liberals who are for limited government, less government, how can less government be the social welfare state?

liberals do not respect right to property or association.


Classical liberalism is a political philosophy and ideology belonging to liberalism in which primary emphasis is placed on securing the freedom of the individual by limiting the power of the government. The philosophy emerged as a response to the Industrial Revolution and urbanization in the 19th century in Europe and the United States.[1] It advocates civil liberties with a limited government under the rule of law, private property rights, and belief in laissez-faire economic liberalism.[2][3][4] Classical liberalism is built on ideas that had already arisen by the end of the 18th century, including ideas of Adam Smith, John Locke, Jean-Baptiste Say, Thomas Malthus, and David Ricardo. Its greatest expression as a political (as well as economic) philosophy in the 19th century was in the works of John Stuart Mill. It drew on a psychological understanding of individual liberty, natural law, utilitarianism, and a belief in progress.[5]

Classical liberalism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Classical liberalism is a philosophy committed to the ideal of limited government and liberty of individuals including freedom of religion, speech, press, assembly, and free markets.[1]

Classical liberalism developed in the nineteenth century in Western Europe, and the Americas. Although classical liberalism built on ideas that had already developed by the end of the eighteenth century, it advocated a specific kind of society, government and public policy required as a result of the Industrial Revolution and urbanization.[2] Notable individuals who have contributed to classical liberalism include Jean-Baptiste Say, Thomas Malthus and David Ricardo.[3] It drew on the economics of Adam Smith, a psychological understanding of individual liberty, natural law and utilitarianism, and a belief in progress. Classical liberals established political parties that were called "liberal", although in the United States classical liberalism came to dominate both existing major political parties.[1] There was a revival of interest in classical liberalism in the twentieth century led by Friedrich Hayek and Milton Friedman.[4]

In the late 19th century, classical liberalism developed into neo-classical liberalism, which argued for government to be as small as possible in order to allow the exercise of individual freedom. In its most extreme form, it advocated Social Darwinism. Libertarianism is a modern form of neo-classical liberalism.[5]

The term classical liberalism was applied in retrospect to distinguish earlier nineteenth-century liberalism from the newer social liberalism.[6] The phrase classical liberalism is also sometimes used to refer to all forms of liberalism before the twentieth century, and some conservatives and libertarians use the term classical liberalism to describe their belief in the primacy of economic freedom and minimal government. It is not always clear which meaning is intended.[7][8][9]

Classical liberalism


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iU-8Uz_nMaQ
Click to expand...

I've been down this road too many times in the past year. I know who is and who isn't a liberal and I don't need that 'classical liberal' crap to point me in the right direction. Liberal means what it always has- so does conservative. Conservatives in the US suddenly realized that the "Founding Fathers' they revere so much were liberals so they had to invent a way they could adjust the definitions. Doesn't matter though, conservatives will always show their stripes when it comes to more laws, less freedom, stronger government. All they need is a Bible in one hand and a Koran in the other and a conservative will use them both to pass laws that could have any American arrested.
 
Grand Mal said:
I've been down this road too many times in the past year. I know who is and who isn't a liberal and I don't need that 'classical liberal' crap to point me in the right direction. Liberal means what it always has- so does conservative. Conservatives in the US suddenly realized that the "Founding Fathers' they revere so much were liberals so they had to invent a way they could adjust the definitions. Doesn't matter though, conservatives will always show their stripes when it comes to more laws, less freedom, stronger government. All they need is a Bible in one hand and a Koran in the other and a conservative will use them both to pass laws that could have any American arrested.
Click to expand...


my post has nothing to do with conservatives.....why go there?

but if you are for what you stated, you are not liberal but a Libertarian.

if you watched the video, ...liberals are against most of the things the professor states are classical liberalism
 
Last edited:
ernst barkmann said:
here is your statement again:



No one??

Judge orders ‘gay’ agenda taught to Christian children


A federal judge in Massachusetts has ordered the “gay” agenda taught to Christians who attend a public school in Massachusetts, finding that they need the teachings to be “engaged and productive citizens.”

U.S. District Judge Mark L. Wolf yesterday dismissed a civil rights lawsuit brought by David Parker, ordering that it is reasonable, indeed there is an obligation, for public schools to teach young children to accept and endorse homosexuality.

Read more at Judge orders ‘gay’ agenda taught to Christian children



Courts, Judges and Politics led by Mark Wolf



Courts, Judges and Politics led by Mark Wolf | The Institute of Politics at Harvard University


. March 6, 2013 - The Rights of Gays, Lesbians, Bisexuals and Transsexuals

The guest speaker will be Judge Wolf's former law clerk, Roberta Kaplan (Cosmopolitan Feature on Roberta Kaplan), Harvard '88, who recently successfully argued in the Supreme Court that the Defense of Marriage Act ("DOMA") is unconstitutional. In addition to discussion of the role of the courts concerning same-sex marriage, the session will draw on Judge Wolf's decisions finding that: the private organizers of Boston's St. Patrick's Day Parade had a First Amendment right to exclude a gay, lesbian, and bisexual group (case summary); religiously motivated parents did not have the right to exempt their children in elementary school from education about homosexuality and same-sex marriage (case summary); and ordering the Massachusetts Department of Corrections to provide sex reassignment surgery to a transsexual prisoner (case summary).
Click to expand...

For gods sake, warn when you are linking to WND. Some people do not like giving those nutbag conspiracy theorists page views. Here is the actual court ruling, not some one telling you what to think about it: Google Scholar


Now, did you know you are not required to send your kids to public school? Ok, that ends this retarded argument, you fail, again.
 
Redress said:
For gods sake, warn when you are linking to WND. Some people do not like giving those nutbag conspiracy theorists page views. Here is the actual court ruling, not some one telling you what to think about it: Google Scholar


Now, did you know you are not required to send your kids to public school? Ok, that ends this retarded argument, you fail, again.
Click to expand...



sorry pal...you said NO ONE ..the judge is clearly someone...you failed badly....so retarded is only in your world.

here is a link you missed.------Courts, Judges and Politics led by Mark Wolf | The Institute of Politics at Harvard University


HARVARD

http://iop.harvard.edu/courts-judges-and-politics-led-mark-wolf


. March 6, 2013 - The Rights of Gays, Lesbians, Bisexuals and Transsexuals

The guest speaker will be Judge Wolf's former law clerk, Roberta Kaplan (Cosmopolitan Feature on Roberta Kaplan), Harvard '88, who recently successfully argued in the Supreme Court that the Defense of Marriage Act ("DOMA") is unconstitutional. In addition to discussion of the role of the courts concerning same-sex marriage, the session will draw on Judge Wolf's decisions finding that: the private organizers of Boston's St. Patrick's Day Parade had a First Amendment right to exclude a gay, lesbian, and bisexual group (case summary); religiously motivated parents did not have the right to exempt their children in elementary school from education about homosexuality and same-sex marriage (case summary); and ordering the Massachusetts Department of Corrections to provide sex reassignment surgery to a transsexual prisoner (case summary).[/QUOTE]

IT MAY ALSO INTEREST YOU TO KNOW SCHOOL IS MANDATORY ....

so do not tell me if i dont like public school go some where else..........just as people have to check their belief in religion at the door of the school,. so should homosexuality should be checked at the door, and stop forcing people to do things against their will.
 
Last edited:
Grand Mal said:
But opposing same sex marriage is supporting a law against it. The question isn't, should we allow it, it's should we outlaw it.
Bigotry? Depends. Does someone want a law against SSM because it's against their religion, or because they don't like gays. If they're obeying their religion they're misguided but if they just don't like gays, they're bigoted.
Click to expand...

That's backward.

No law is (or at least should be) needed to outlaw “same sex marriage”. Marriage has always been understood as being between a man and a woman, and until very recently, the very idea of defining marriage as anything else was correctly and universally recognized as entirely absurd at best.

With the de-facto premise being that marriage is only between a man and a woman, it takes a radical and irrational act of law to seek to define it otherwise, and to force legal recognition of this ridiculous redefinition of marriage.

It is not those of us who support marriage trying to outlaw “same sex marriage, but a tiny minority of immoral freaks who are trying to force a blatantly immoral redefinition of it on a society that, for the most part, wants no part of this redefinition.

It is not the moral trying to force our morality on the immoral; it is the immoral trying to force their immorality on the moral.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom