• 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


Which is exactly why you never rely on the “morals of the majority”! In the1800s it was owning slaves, in the 1900s it was kill the Jews, gays, morons and / or anyone who opposed Socialism / Communism. Today it’s killing babies in the womb (although they possess all the qualities of life).

You believe that morality can be found within man.

In can’t because man is a flawed moral creature as history so amply demonstrates.

Funny how quickly arguments can appear to reverse when the situation changes. When national opinion was against ssm one of the frequent arguments used by those on the Right was "The majority is against same sex marriage." So the counter-argument was, naturally, along the lines of "Well, at one time it was acceptable to own slaves." So now national opinion favors ssm, and those in favor say, "See, now you can't use that argument anymore, the majority favors same sex marriage now." So those on the Right respond, "Well, at one time it was acceptable to own slaves."

Entertaining stuff.
 
Funny how quickly arguments can appear to reverse when the situation changes. When national opinion was against ssm one of the frequent arguments used by those on the Right was "The majority is against same sex marriage." So the counter-argument was, naturally, along the lines of "Well, at one time it was acceptable to own slaves." So now national opinion favors ssm, and those in favor say, "See, now you can't use that argument anymore, the majority favors same sex marriage now." So those on the Right respond, "Well, at one time it was acceptable to own slaves."

Entertaining stuff.

You think I'm arguing for the "morals of the mojority"?
 
You think I'm arguing for the "morals of the mojority"?

I think that this argument against gay marriage has made a 180 degree turn when it no longer worked for those opposed to ssm.
 
Which ones are examples of bigotry?

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

I do not believe that one is bigoted who truly believes in an issue from a religious standpoint. Religion (particularly Christianity) requires a leap of faith- it is not necessary or possible to resolve differences of opinion on religion factually. Because it is based in faith, rather than fact.

For example, if a "gay gene" was discovered- similar to a gene that determines hair color or some other trait that a person can not control, I would not expect a fundamentalist Christian to change their stance on homosexuality or gay marriage. These types of facts don't matter, because a person of fundamentalist Christian faith believes the Bible to be the infallible word of God, notwithstanding any secular facts to the contrary.

You may believe what you believe. It is ok with me as a gay man. It is not bigoted, IMO. It is your firmly held belief.
 
You're dodging my question.

Two parter to that:

1)The argument that the majority approves of ssm is specifically a rebuttal to the idea that an argument that states the majority is against ssm is legitimate. It was never argued in the beginning that a majority determined the rightness of same sex marriage. After all, why would those in favor of gay marriage argue that? They were in the minority at the time so it would be a stupid argument to make.
2)Have you ever argued that the majority determines the rightness (or morality) of a belief or law?
 
Two parter to that:

1)The argument that the majority approves of ssm is specifically a rebuttal to the idea that an argument that states the majority is against ssm is legitimate. It was never argued in the beginning that a majority determined the rightness of same sex marriage. After all, why would those in favor of gay marriage argue that? They were in the minority at the time so it would be a stupid argument to make.

I don’t care.

2)Have you ever argued that the majority determines the rightness (or morality) of a belief or law?

No. Nazi Germany always sticks out in my mind as a majority that dictated away the rights of a minority.

3) You still haven’t answered my question.
 


I don’t care.



Well you should, because that's the specific reason why I or someone like Roguenuke would mention the majority favorability on gay marriage. (I'm being presumptuous for speaking for her, but I'm confident I'm on target here).

No. Nazi Germany always sticks out in my mind as a majority that dictated away the rights of a minority.

Then can you please explain the following post written by you in 2007?

And when a court does rule in favor of gay marriage they will have created a precedent that courts in every other state will use to find for gay marriage. In the end, the will of the majority of Americans will be ignored.And when a court does rule in favor of gay marriage they will have created a precedent that courts in every other state will use to find for gay marriage. In the end, the will of the majority of Americans will be ignored.
http://www.debatepolitics.com/archi...iage-church-vs-state-issue-47.html#post571480

If you don't believe the majority determines the rightness of an idea, and if the majority dictating the rights of a minority is reminiscent of Nazi Germany, why would you mention the "majority of Americans" when you believed back in 2007 that said majority was against ssm?

3) You still haven’t answered my question.

I answered this in technicolor and you said you didn't care. I've fulfilled my part in this.
 
Last edited:


I don’t care.



No. Nazi Germany always sticks out in my mind as a majority that dictated away the rights of a minority.

3) You still haven’t answered my question.

Again in 2007:

As far as I know, regardless of your religion everyone agrees that marriage is between one man and one woman. No laws have been established that favor one religion over another.
http://www.debatepolitics.com/archives/18255-gay-marriage-good-16.html#post578654

And in 2009:

“And while I certainly respect your belief, I oppose it the very minute you attempt to impose it upon the rest of us.” – Singularity

Make no mistake about it. In any society the beliefs--moral, secular, whatever--of the majority or those in power will dictate how the rest of society lives and functions.
I happen to believe that the dictates of this country should be based upon the very Judeo-Christian ideals that this country was founded upon.
http://www.debatepolitics.com/sex-and-sexuality/53520-homosexuality-11.html#post1058183390

Again, when you believed that the majority of Americans sided against ssm, that seemed to be a pretty important fact for you. What changed between then and now?
 
Funny how quickly arguments can appear to reverse when the situation changes. When national opinion was against ssm one of the frequent arguments used by those on the Right was "The majority is against same sex marriage." So the counter-argument was, naturally, along the lines of "Well, at one time it was acceptable to own slaves." So now national opinion favors ssm, and those in favor say, "See, now you can't use that argument anymore, the majority favors same sex marriage now." So those on the Right respond, "Well, at one time it was acceptable to own slaves."

Entertaining stuff.

I was thinking this very same thing and i'm sure if anyone wanted to, they could dig up posts from Baron and others from a few years ago, attesting to "the will of the majority."

I try to be consistent and say **** the majority even now that they're on the side of SSM. I want this resolved in the courts by an educated elite, not by joe the plumber

edit: nvm i see you dug up a post already lol. Typical cowardly religious dissonance at work there huh. I'm sure he'll try to weasel out of it somehow
 
Last edited:
I do not believe that one is bigoted who truly believes in an issue from a religious standpoint. Religion (particularly Christianity) requires a leap of faith- it is not necessary or possible to resolve differences of opinion on religion factually. Because it is based in faith, rather than fact.

For example, if a "gay gene" was discovered- similar to a gene that determines hair color or some other trait that a person can not control, I would not expect a fundamentalist Christian to change their stance on homosexuality or gay marriage. These types of facts don't matter, because a person of fundamentalist Christian faith believes the Bible to be the infallible word of God, notwithstanding any secular facts to the contrary.

You may believe what you believe. It is ok with me as a gay man. It is not bigoted, IMO. It is your firmly held belief.

"leaps of faith" are still bigotry. White supremacists say the very same thing about their god wanting the races separate, so he put them in separate locations. Are they not bigots?

Willful ignorance of facts is still a choice and therefore can be bigoted, whether under the guise of religion or the "ick factor" or some other nonsense. Resistance to marriage equality unfailingly boils down to "i'm better than them," so yeah that is the epitome of bigotry.
 


I don’t care.



No. Nazi Germany always sticks out in my mind as a majority that dictated away the rights of a minority.

3) You still haven’t answered my question.

Oh my! America in 2007 was full of nazis then, according to you!
 


Which is exactly why you never rely on the “morals of the majority”! In the1800s it was owning slaves, in the 1900s it was kill the Jews, gays, morons and / or anyone who opposed Socialism / Communism. Today it’s killing babies in the womb (although they possess all the qualities of life).

You believe that morality can be found within man.

In can’t because man is a flawed moral creature as history so amply demonstrates.

What would you suggest we rely on then? Can't be morals of any religion without being a theocracy, and there are no objective morals. The only other options are the morals of a single individual or small group, which would be basically a monarchy or oligarchy or something like these, where a few people get to tell everyone else how they should live.
 
What would you suggest we rely on then? Can't be morals of any religion without being a theocracy, and there are no objective morals. The only other options are the morals of a single individual or small group, which would be basically a monarchy or oligarchy or something like these, where a few people get to tell everyone else how they should live.

And since people have found religious reasons to do the most horendous things.
 
And since people have found religious reasons to do the most horendous things.

That too. There simply isn't a perfect system for governing, but what we have is the best we can think of so far and although it certainly has its flaws, eventually many get worked out.
 
Back
Top Bottom