• 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
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.

Trying to redefine something into what it never was and never will truly be is not a “civil right”. Marriage is, always has been, and always will be, between a man and a woman.
 
Trying to redefine something into what it never was and never will truly be is not a “civil right”. Marriage is, always has been, and always will be, between a man and a woman.

actually to be correct it is a civl right, which is a privilege, .....its not a natural right.

privileges are dispensed by government, and the government must honor them,............ not Citizens or business.

if a state grants Citizens a privilege it must give them to everyone, unless the state can show its in their interest not to grant a privilege to someone....which is hard to do.
 
More likely he was waiting for the rest of the country to stop being such

So it is your theory that he is instead a lying coward who is unwilling to lead?
 
So it is your theory that he is instead a lying coward who is unwilling to lead?

In most respects and like almost all politicians, yes
 
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.

By definition, if most people consider something as normal then its not deviant. By your definition of deviance, you are deviant as you are well to the right of most people, thus your abnormal and deviant. ;)
 
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.

More than any rhetorical nonsense about limited govt and individual liberty, conservative by its nature means content with the status quo and resistant to change - preserving wealth and class hierarchy by eliminating taxes and social programs (less govt) and preserving their 'heritage' using racial profiling laws, gerrymandering, and crushing any other minority that threatens their sense of propriety (more govt).

The more govt equation is where they unfailingly lose me. They'd put a cop in every bedroom, if their love affair with the religious right is any indication. Conservatives can have the most sensible tax code in history and it won't mean a damn thing, because the political party most of them attach themselves to openly despises those who aren't white, christian, and hetero.
 
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.
Uh huh. So we shouldn't have referred to southern racists and KKK members as bigots, because we can't tell which ones are really bigots, and it won't change their minds anyway. :mrgreen:

I can understand why some people oppose SSM. But at this point, it's pretty clear that those reasons are based not in genuine research on the effects of SSM on the society at large, or on gay families. It's just intolerance for the lifestyle of others. And since people have been labeling it as such for a few years, while support for SSM is increasing, maybe it is working after all....
 
I oppose the government granting SSM. However I also oppose the government granting heterosexual marriages due to my belief that the government should not have the ability nor power to grant or deny any marriage.
Oh?

So the government shouldn't prevent people from marrying 12 year olds? It shouldn't prevent brothers from marrying sisters? It shouldn't prevent bigamy?

What other types of marriage does it deny? Does it prevent two consenting adults, who are not related, and not married to anyone else, from getting married? Can the government force a legitimately married couple to divorce? Can it prevent an infertile man from getting married? Does the government decide which two individuals will get married? Pick them out of a lineup, perhaps?

I also can't help but notice that the "government should get out of marriage" thing only really picked up steam in tandem with the increasing acceptability of SSM. Maybe I missed it, but I don't recall a lot of people saying this 20 years ago....
 
Oh?

So the government shouldn't prevent people from marrying 12 year olds? It shouldn't prevent brothers from marrying sisters? It shouldn't prevent bigamy?

What other types of marriage does it deny? Does it prevent two consenting adults, who are not related, and not married to anyone else, from getting married? Can the government force a legitimately married couple to divorce? Can it prevent an infertile man from getting married? Does the government decide which two individuals will get married? Pick them out of a lineup, perhaps?

I also can't help but notice that the "government should get out of marriage" thing only really picked up steam in tandem with the increasing acceptability of SSM. Maybe I missed it, but I don't recall a lot of people saying this 20 years ago....

To sum up how I feel, I believe that any persons able to lawfully make a private contract should be able to chose whoever and how many they wish to make a contract with. If a brother and sister wish to marry, if a woman wants to marry 48 men, heterosexual/homosexual or a mix or whatever isnt my business and should not be the governments business. I am personally tired of other people/government trying to dictate how other people should lives their lives or limit them in their ability to live whatever life they deem is right for themselves.
 
I voted neither. The word bigot has gotten so muddy that I dont use it anymore.
 
Which ones are examples of bigotry?

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

Absolutely. People who oppose SSM want to deny rights to minority groups they don't like. This is pure, spiteful bigotry.

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.

Do you advocate that people who hunt ducks should have less rights than a normal citizen? If you want to deny rights to groups you hate, that's bigotry.
 
Which ones are examples of bigotry?

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

Without further explanation in your question or in peoples answers your question as written is to vague.

You would first have to explain the form of opposition and or the reason for such.

Lets first start with the definitions of opposed and bigot.
Oppose - Definition and More from the Free Merriam-Webster Dictionary
Opposed
1: to disagree with or disapprove of (something or someone)
2: to compete against (someone) : to be an opponent of (someone)
3: to try to stop or defeat (something)

Oppose - Definition and More from the Free Merriam-Webster Dictionary
Bigot
1: a person who strongly and unfairly dislikes other people, ideas, etc.
2: a bigoted person; especially : a person who hates or refuses to accept the members of a particular group (such as a racial or religious group)

so lets go with some examples now

person A opposess SSM, meaning they "disagree" with it but they are not trying to stop it and dont treat people who support it or participate in it differently.
NOT a bigot

Person B opposes SSM, meaning they "disagree" with it but they are also "actively trying to stop it". Supporters of it are "opponents" to them and they dont view gays as an equal or SSM as equal.
YES a bigot

simply not agreeing with SSM doesnt make one a bigot any more than not agreeing with interracial marriage but actively trying to stop it does make one a bigot.
 
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.

This is why words have meaning. Tax cuts have zero relevance to what the definition of bigotry entails. It's like saying that you can't call people sexist, because saying someone is sexist makes no sense if we're discussing support for food labels. No, your argument is absolutely ridiculous and I'm surprised you actually thought it made sense.

Bigotry entails opposition to a lifestyle, religion, gender, disability, class etc and group characteristics. We know it entails an attitude which is about more than being opposed to some laws. We also know opposition to gays getting married comes for the most part as a result of religious belief. This nonsense that there are other important reasons behind it is nonsense. Libertarians, who are an insignificant part of the US' voting demographic keep pretending there are.

That's just mind boggling. How such a small percentage of the population can keep pushing the myth that there is a genuine discussion about this issue. At least one that rises beyond the level of whether or not religious belief is enough to keep a group away from benefits, rights and privileges afforded to others. There really isn't. There isn't a drive to make marriage a states issue. There isn't a drive to take marriage away from the feds. There simply isn't. The drive is to make marriage inaccessible to gays on a state level and a federal level. This convoluted discussion that the 'small government' crowd tries to pretend is going on is part of the same struggle fought by people across different fronts.

This is the same struggle that disabled people are facing when it comes to acceptance in the work place. The same struggle that European travellers have when it comes to being treated as citizens. It's the same struggle faced by immigrants whose degrees aren't recognized because they come from supposedly undeveloped nations. It is a narrative based on one group looking for acceptance within a larger group where there is a sizeable population looking at it with disgust. That's it. Whatever reasons some people have for contributing to the discrimination these groups face doesn't change the fact that the majority opposes it because they don't want to accept the smaller group.
 
Last edited:
So you're okay with all types of bigotry, whether against gays or blacks?

Jump to conclusions much? What do blacks have to do with religious values? Religious values are personal and not uniform in any race or ethnicity. Again, you are confused about the definition of bigotry and using it too broadly.
 
Trying to redefine something into what it never was and never will truly be is not a “civil right”. Marriage is, always has been, and always will be, between a man and a woman.

LOL....marriage has been redefined many times throughout history. The bigots of the 1950's attempted to make the same argument to prevent inter-racial marriage, claiming it was perverted, against nature and immoral. They attempted to cry about the sacredness of "traditional marriage" and how allowing inter-racial couples to marry redefined the historical context of marriage....after all..."marriage is, always has been and always will be between a man and a woman of the same race.". Bigots never change....only the wording does.
 
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...

You're confusing conservatives with religious believers. I'm a conservative. I don't oppose SSM or other similar laws.
 
Absolutely. People who oppose SSM want to deny rights to minority groups they don't like. This is pure, spiteful bigotry.



Do you advocate that people who hunt ducks should have less rights than a normal citizen? If you want to deny rights to groups you hate, that's bigotry.

Yes, I think duck hunting should be illegal. I think deer hunting should remain legal. So yes, that would make me a duck hunter bigot. And therein lies the problem I have with the use of the word "bigot" when I made that post you quoted.
 
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.

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.
 
I say both. I don't see why their overall political position is relevant to the question.
At least you understand the question. Someone help me out, please.
 
There's no good option for voting here, and I think the answers are designed to create an excuse to show how bad liberals are.

It depends on what the reason is. If you oppose SSM because you have an irrational hatred for gay people, then yes.
 
Trying to redefine something into what it never was and never will truly be is not a “civil right”. Marriage is, always has been, and always will be, between a man and a woman.

Ironic coming from a Mormon. People of your faith literally died protecting their "right" to be polygamous, and now you're trying to say it's always been monogamous.

Here's a primer on what's been considered a valid marriage in the Bible.

biblical-marriage.jpg
 
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.

Until very recently, homosexuality was illegal. Was that right? Should the government legislate 'morality'?
 
Back
Top Bottom