• 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
Lovebug said:
Suing the baker for not catering their wedding is what, exactly? It says to me that: "You do as I please or else".
A great show of lacking tolerance on their part while expecting tolerance from the baker.
Click to expand...

Or else what? I'll use the laws established by the people of this country through voting, SCOTUS and congressional and executive representation? Nonsense. You're stretching the definition of 'forcing' to include legal recourse.
 
Lovebug said:
The SSC may cause just as much hardship solely because of his believes/a religious group he may belong to.
Life is full of disappointments, regardless of sexual preference, ethnicity, color of creed. It is called life. Make the best of it, practice tolerance, aka practice what you preach, and move on.
Click to expand...

You mean like all those black kids in the South getting 2nd rate educations because of segregation?

Do you really think that had no impact on our entire society?

By refusing opportunities and the same quality education to a group of people....keeps them from becoming a full and productive part of society. It enables strife, resentment, poverty, etc. It is not in our best interests to keep a group of people as 2nd class citizens, disenfranchised from the same benefits, opportunities, privileges of the majority.
 
mpg said:
Which ones are examples of bigotry?
Click to expand...
It's not in legal actuality bigotry (regardless of intent) when someone in a state opposes the oxymoronic "gay" marriage and that state has a domestic partnership civil union statute for same-sex couples, a "homarriage" statute, in that state.

It may be bigotry (of intent or not of intent, but by appeal to omission) when someone in a state opposes the oxymoronic "gay" marriage and that state doesn't have a domestic partnership civil union statute for same-sex couples, a "homarriage" statute, in that state and that someone opposes such a statute.
 
Hatuey said:
Or else what? I'll use the laws established by the people of this country through voting, SCOTUS and congressional and executive representation? Nonsense. You're stretching the definition of 'forcing' to include legal recourse.
Click to expand...

Only a wrong-winger could claim that the use of “legal recourse” or the threat thereof to compel someone to act against his will doesn't constitute “forcing”.

The person who has a gun to his head is having the same experience whether it is you holding your own gun to his head, or government holding its guns to his head on your behalf.
 
Bob Blaylock said:
Only a wrong-winger could claim that the use of “legal recourse” or the threat thereof to compel someone to act against his will doesn't constitute “forcing”.

The person who has a gun to his head is having the same experience whether it is you holding your own gun to his head, or government holding its guns to his head on your behalf.
Click to expand...

simple solution
dont CHOOSE to break the law
dont CHOOSE to be a criminal
dont CHOOSE to infringe on others rights

we know your views condone those things but that will never make those evils right
 
Lursa said:
You are taking this far off of my response and the topic. I am personally completely against pharmacists refusing to stock the Morning After pill. However I support their right to not sell it if voting or even on principle. I disagree with their use of their religious beliefs but I am not bigoted against their religion.

We are talking about SSM and I generalized more to 'traditions.' The Boy Scouts are a traditional organization....if someone wants to exclude women from that org., or that fancy golf course in Scotland that never let women play....are they bigoted against women? No...they just have their own perceptions of those traditions and recognize (to them, for whatever reasons) that females do not belong there. (Yes, we are talking about opinion here...right? I do realize that Scotland is not America and it is also probably a private org but the 'thinking' is the same.)
Click to expand...
How am I taking this far off of your response and this topic? If you applied your reasoning consistency, you would say the tradition of being against interracial marriage is not racist. Also, your pharmacy example is not an example of bigotry, and is not comparable to being against gays marrying.

You say that people who are against same-sex marriage are not bigoted because you "see a difference in how someone thinks and if they actually act against it, like voting for example. Just because they 'personally' hold that tradition a certain way, view it 'their way,' doesn't mean they are bigoted against others."

Okay. Apply that logic consistently then. Say there is a man against interracial marriage. He thinks it is wrong and immoral for a black man to marry a white woman, but he doesn't "actually act against it." Just because he "personally holds that tradition a certain way, doesn't mean he is bigoted against others." Right? Because based on your argument, he would not be a bigot. Do you agree?
 
AGENT J said:
simple solution
dont CHOOSE to break the law
dont CHOOSE to be a criminal
dont CHOOSE to infringe on others rights

we know your views condone those things but that will never make those evils right
Click to expand...

The First Amendment is the law.

Why are you OK with various branches of government blatantly violating this law, in order to enact and enforce an unconstitutional lesser law that violates the First Amendment, but not OK with a citizen choosing to legitimately exercise his first amendment rights in defiance of the illegally-enacted and enforced law?

Where do you get off accusing people of being “criminals” for exercising their moral and Constitutional rights, while excusing outright criminal conduct on the part of government in an effort to violate these rights?
 
Bob Blaylock said:
Only a wrong-winger could claim that the use of “legal recourse” or the threat thereof to compel someone to act against his will doesn't constitute “forcing”.
Click to expand...

Only someone who hasn't read the Bible would claim that marriage has always been between a man and a woman. I guess we're even? ;)

The person who has a gun to his head is having the same experience whether it is you holding your own gun to his head, or government holding its guns to his head on your behalf.
Click to expand...

Only there is no gun and you live in a society of laws. :shrug: So your blabbering is nonsense.
 
Bob Blaylock said:
The First Amendment is the law.

Why are you OK with various branches of government blatantly violating this law, in order to enact and enforce an unconstitutional lesser law that violates the First Amendment, but not OK with a citizen choosing to legitimately exercise his first amendment rights in defiance of the illegally-enacted and enforced law?

Where do you get off accusing people of being “criminals” for exercising their moral and Constitutional rights, while excusing outright criminal conduct on the part of government in an effort to violate these rights?
Click to expand...

The first amendment doesn't include taking advantage of services paid by a society and then denying sections of that society those benefits.
 
Lakryte said:
How am I taking this far off of your response and this topic? If you applied your reasoning consistency, you would say the tradition of being against interracial marriage is not racist. Also, your pharmacy example is not an example of bigotry, and is not comparable to being against gays marrying.

You say that people who are against same-sex marriage are not bigoted because you "see a difference in how someone thinks and if they actually act against it, like voting for example. Just because they 'personally' hold that tradition a certain way, view it 'their way,' doesn't mean they are bigoted against others."

Okay. Apply that logic consistently then. Say there is a man against interracial marriage. He thinks it is wrong and immoral for a black man to marry a white woman, but he doesn't "actually act against it." Just because he "personally holds that tradition a certain way, doesn't mean he is bigoted against others." Right? Because based on your argument, he would not be a bigot. Do you agree?
Click to expand...

So then people that object to women in Boy Scouts or playing golf at that extremely traditional golf course in Scotland are bigoted against women? Misogynists? Or....are there other things that they take into consideration regarding those traditions?

(No one said that one has to see something as 'immoral' to object, btw. Again, there are many components to 'traditions.')
 
Bob Blaylock said:
The First Amendment is the law.

Why are you OK with various branches of government blatantly violating this law, in order to enact and enforce an unconstitutional lesser law that violates the First Amendment, but not OK with a citizen choosing to legitimately exercise his first amendment rights in defiance of the illegally-enacted and enforced law?

Where do you get off accusing people of being “criminals” for exercising their moral and Constitutional rights, while excusing outright criminal conduct on the part of government in an effort to violate these rights?
Click to expand...

Oh please, I have the freedom of speech yet I can't go on tv or radio and say **** off all you mother****ing ****heads without being censored or fined, can I? Now would you argue I should have the right to do that in the middle of a family oriented program?
 
Bob Blaylock said:
1.)The First Amendment is the law.
2.) Why are you OK with various branches of government blatantly violating this law, in order to enact and enforce an unconstitutional lesser law that violates the First Amendment, but not OK with a citizen choosing to legitimately exercise his first amendment rights in defiance of the illegally-enacted and enforced law?
3.) Where do you get off accusing people of being “criminals” for exercising their moral and Constitutional rights
4.) while excusing outright criminal conduct on the part of government in an effort to violate these rights?
Click to expand...

1.) yes it is and its not infringed on in any way
2.) i wouldnt be OK with that but since that factually isnt happening its of no concern.
Laws, rights, the constitution and court cases all prove your opinions to be wrong, what do you have on you have supporting your claims?
3.) never did that so that lie and strawman fails. also i didnt accuse the people in question here, i simply pointed out the fact that they are in deed criminals and they were not exercising their moral and Constitutional rights in reality as again laws, rights, the Constitution and court cases prove.
4.) another lie and strawman since the government isnt doing that.

this is common thoough. Many times many times people hid behind dishonest fallacies when their views were bigoted and or about oppressing others rights and freedoms. Denial like that is common when doing so. People did the same thing against woman's rights and minority rights. It was illogical and failed then too.

like i said its a VERY simple solution

dont CHOOSE to break the law
dont CHOOSE to be a criminal
dont CHOOSE to infringe on others rights

we know your views condone those things but that will never make those evils right
 
Lursa said:
So then people that object to women in Boy Scouts or playing golf at that extremely traditional golf course in Scotland are bigoted against women? Misogynists? Or....are there other things that they take into consideration regarding those traditions?

(No one said that one has to see something as 'immoral' to object, btw. Again, there are many components to 'traditions.')
Click to expand...
That is not answering my question, which, by the way, is more relevant than your example. Say there is a man against interracial marriage. He thinks it is wrong and immoral for a black man to marry a white woman, but he doesn't "actually act against it." Just because he "personally holds that tradition a certain way, doesn't mean he is bigoted against others." Right? Because based on your argument, he would not be a bigot. Do you agree?

Tell me: is the man racist or not? Is he a bigot? If so, why is he a bigot whereas someone with an identical view against same-sex couples marrying is not a bigot?
 
Lakryte said:
That is not answering my question, which, by the way, is more relevant than your example. Say there is a man against interracial marriage. He thinks it is wrong and immoral for a black man to marry a white woman, but he doesn't "actually act against it." Just because he "personally holds that tradition a certain way, doesn't mean he is bigoted against others." Right? Because based on your argument, he would not be a bigot. Do you agree?

Tell me: is the man racist or not? Is he a bigot? If so, why is he a bigot whereas someone with an identical view against same-sex couples marrying is not a bigot?
Click to expand...


I love your demands! /sarcasm

I have asked this question at least twice and you have not answered it.

I have never claimed that something cant be bigoted...I am claiming there can be circumstances where it is not.

Now, if you'd like to continue, please answer my questions, since they are pertinent to the argument that *I* am making. Not the one you want me to make.

Lursa said:
So then people that object to women in Boy Scouts or playing golf at that extremely traditional golf course in Scotland are bigoted against women? Misogynists? Or....are there other things that they take into consideration regarding those traditions?
(No one said that one has to see something as 'immoral' to object, btw. Again, there are many components to 'traditions.')
Click to expand...
 
Lursa said:
I love your demands! /sarcasm

I have asked this question at least twice and you have not answered it.

I have never claimed that something cant be bigoted...I am claiming there can be circumstances where it is not.

Now, if you'd like to continue, please answer my questions, since they are pertinent to the argument that *I* am making. Not the one you want me to make.
Click to expand...
I already answered your question--quite directly actually. Refer to post #128.

You don't get to control what questions are asked of your argument, by the way. That's not how a debate works. My question is incredibly pertinent to your argument. I am directly applying your argument consistently to an incredibly similar issue. The fact that you refuse to answer such a basic question is very, very telling. For the third time:

Say there is a man against interracial marriage. He thinks it is wrong and immoral for a black man to marry a white woman, but he doesn't "actually act against it." Just because he "personally holds that tradition a certain way, doesn't mean he is bigoted against others." Right? Because based on your argument, he would not be a bigot. Do you agree?

Tell me: is the man racist or not? Is he a bigot? If so, why is he a bigot whereas someone with an identical view against same-sex couples marrying is not a bigot?
 
Hatuey said:
Only someone who hasn't read the Bible would claim that marriage has always been between a man and a woman. I guess we're even? ;)
Click to expand...

Where is there, in the Bible, any mention of a marriage that is not between a man and a woman, or any suggestion that such a thing is even possible?
 
Last edited:
Lakryte said:
I already answered your question--quite directly actually. Refer to post #128.
Click to expand...

No, you dismissed it.

And as I wrote and you are trying to turn around on me...you don't get to tell me what 'my' argument is.

The most likely reason is that it is 'inconvenient' to yours. Oh well!

So I wont be answering your questions for your argument as they are 'not comparable' (as you said :)).
 
Lursa said:
No, you dismissed it.

And as I wrote and you are trying to turn around on me...you don't get to tell me what 'my' argument is.

The most likely reason is that it is 'inconvenient' to yours. Oh well!

So I wont be answering your questions for your argument as they are 'not comparable' (as you said :)).
Click to expand...
Why are you lying? I directly answered the question, and it is there for all to see in post #128. Your question was this: "If someone disagrees with girls joining the Boy Scouts, are they bigoted against women? "

My answer was this:
Liberalis said:
Of course not, but the example is not comparable whatsoever. My above example is far more comparable.
Click to expand...
You asked a yes or no question, and I gave a clear no answer. Your lack of integrity is astounding.

Now you refuse to answer my question, which directly addresses your argument. I think it is obvious that your answer is yes. Like any other sane person, you believe that a man who is against white women marrying black men is a bigot. Yet at the same time, you believe that a person who is against men marrying men or women marrying women is not a bigot. You hold a hypocritical double standard, plain and simple.
 
Fletch said:
God that sounds like liberalism.
Click to expand...

disapproval and intolerance are not the same

i can disapprove of a belief system, but intolerance would be seeking to pass laws *banning* them, as so many have done re: SSM and gay rights generally. That is the diff
 
sawdust said:
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.
Click to expand...

Whether you dislike someone because an ancient book of fables tells you to, or some other reason, is all the same
 
sawdust said:
I majored in sociology for a short time until I realized they taught too much opinion for my liking. I have opinions of my own and don't need to suck up someone else's misconceptions. You're the one making claims of religious bigotry. I'm only saying that each individual should be free to live his life expressing his religious values. You want to take a more totalitarian approach I feel sorry for you in a way.
Click to expand...

Sound just like the guy i had to work in a group with. He'd complain that this assigned book being written by a "black mother of 3 upset about what she didn't have" (despite she was a lawyer and bestselling author) and couldn't figure out why no one would hear him out.

Alas, hatred is not a 'value'
 
Lursa said:
I love your demands! /sarcasm

I have asked this question at least twice and you have not answered it.

I have never claimed that something cant be bigoted...I am claiming there can be circumstances where it is not.

Now, if you'd like to continue, please answer my questions, since they are pertinent to the argument that *I* am making. Not the one you want me to make.
Click to expand...

So what are the circumstances where opposing interracial marriage is not bigoted? You do realize "religious values" was a common justification for those bans? But what it really boiled down to was a sense of superior, i.e. bigotry, whether we're talking about interracial marriage or SSM
 
Lursa said:
So I wont be answering your questions for your argument as they are 'not comparable' (as you said :)).
Click to expand...

It's only 'not comparable' if you believe racial hatred is not acceptable, but hatred of gays is

It reveals a lot more about where you're coming from than some analogy you consider disingenuous
 
sawdust said:
I said sex, when I mentioned laws about discrimination. Feel free to replace sex with gender, men or women if it make my statement clearer. I never said that it was ok to discriminate against gays individually. There are religious objections to gay marriage and I can understand why some business owners feel that working on them violates their personal values.
Click to expand...

I understand their reasoning too... I just think that it should be illegal to discriminate against people in a business setting.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom