• 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
Bodhisattva said:
I understand their reasoning too... I just think that it should be illegal to discriminate against people in a business setting.
Click to expand...


For me it's a matter of property rights. Should I be able to do with my property what I wish or does the government have that much control over my property.
 
chromium said:
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'
Click to expand...

Who said anything about hatred? I've turned down work with my millwork company, not because I hated anyone but because we were too busy. Everyone sets their own standards.
 
Lovebug said:
The same could be said about those who seek acceptance by any means necessary.
Someone with different values from those who agree with SSM doesn't have to be bigoted, but may just have an opinion different from ours.
Once we learn to truly tolerate those with whom we happen to disagree, we may just be able to live happily side by side.
I.e., when a baker doesn't want to cater a SSM, he/she could politely and enthusiastically recommend a baker who does, and the SS couple could give it a try, instead of forcing the baker to cater to their wedding.
Compromise is key, for bigotry isn't reserved for those who oppose SSM, but is also found among those who are SS etc and seek acceptance.
We must listen to each other and hear, look for what unites us and brings us together. You catch flies with honey, not with complaisant remarks and attitudes or law suits.
Click to expand...

So you want tolerant and accepting people to tolerate intolerant bigots so that the intolerant bigots feel better about their intolerant bigotry?
 
sawdust said:
Who said anything about hatred? I've turned down work with my millwork company, not because I hated anyone but because we were too busy. Everyone sets their own standards.
Click to expand...

Avoidance of the point, because you weren't turning away business due to reasons of discrimintation.
 
sawdust said:
For me it's a matter of property rights. Should I be able to do with my property what I wish or does the government have that much control over my property.
Click to expand...

The vast majority of businesses are on public property...
 
roguenuke said:
Same sex couples are two individuals. It would be no different than if it was a business refusing because they were against interracial marriage or interfaith marriage or atheists getting married

Businesses have a right to express their feelings on an issue, but not to refuse service to people based on their feelings of that issue when doing so violated anti discrimination laws
Click to expand...

Personally I don't care who gets married. You are mixing individual rights, which I agree should be protected under the law with forcing someone to do work in support of an institution they oppose. If someone doesn't want to work on a gay wedding, why would the gay people want their work and why should the government be able to force them to do work they object to?
 
Bodhisattva said:
I understand their reasoning too... I just think that it should be illegal to discriminate against people in a business setting.
Click to expand...

Hey, what's wrong with a little racist aggressive economic warfare, using public resources such as roads and stuff, to help scumbags feel superior?
 
chromium said:
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
Click to expand...

So then it means that if you don't want women to join the Boy Scouts or that original, traditional golf club in Scotland, you hate women? Or are bigoted against women?

Seems perfectly comparable to me. My only point here is that sometimes there is more to a tradition than bias against someone/some group. It's about a person's perception of the tradition, not necessarily the perception of the group.

Kids going to school, people riding on buses and eating at counters in restaurants....those are examples of things that are not 'tradition.' (IMO)

Case in point: many people objecting to SSM said that they supported civil unions for gays. What's the difference here? The difference is that people don't mind the state sanctioning it, even recognize gays have the same right to the same 'things' attached to marriage, just not the 'word,' what the tradition means to them. They don't want to deny gays anything but their perception of a tradition that they apparently hold.
 
Last edited:
Lursa said:
So then it means that if you don't want women to join the Boy Scouts or that original, traditional golf club in Scotland, you hate women? Or are bigoted against women?

Seems perfectly comparable to me. My only point here is that sometimes there is more to a tradition than bias against someone/some group. It's about a person's perception of the tradition, not necessarily the perception of the group.

Kids going to school, people riding on buses and eating at counters in restaurants....those are examples of things that are not 'tradition.' (IMO)
Click to expand...
For many, the marriage of blacks and whites violates the tradition of same-race marriage. By your own logic, someone who is against a black man marrying a white woman is not a bigot simply because their view is "traditional."

The reality is that tradition is completely irrelevant to the definition of bigotry. Something can be both traditional and bigoted. Your argument is completely without merit.
 
Lakryte said:
For many, the marriage of blacks and whites violates the tradition of same-race marriage. By your own logic, someone who is against a black man marrying a white woman is not a bigot simply because their view is "traditional."

The reality is that tradition is completely irrelevant to the definition of bigotry. Something can be both traditional and bigoted. Your argument is completely without merit.
Click to expand...

I said none of those things, nor did I even imply them.

The fact that while something can be both traditional and bigoted, it's also true that something can be traditional and not bigoted, as your admission that you said that not allowing women to join the Boy Scouts/golf club didn't make someone bigoted against women indicates. (Altho it actually could mean exactly that...just not necessarily)
 
Lursa said:
I said none of those things, nor did I even imply them.
Click to expand...
That's the problem. You won't answer the question. If you don't want me to infer your answer you are going to have to state it yourself. Do you believe a person who is against interracial marriage is a bigot?

Esp the fact that while something can be both traditional and bigoted, it's also true that something can be traditional and not bigoted, as your admission that you said that not allowing women to join the Boy Scouts/golf club didn't make someone bigoted against women. (Altho it actually could mean exactly that...just not necessarily)
Click to expand...
That was my point. Tradition is irrelevant to bigotry. Yet you are the one who brought up tradition in the first place. Why is a person who is against interracial marriage a bigot, while a person who is against same-sex marriage is not a bigot?
 
Lursa said:
My only point here is that sometimes there is more to a tradition than bias against someone/some group. It's about a person's perception of the tradition, not necessarily the perception of the group.
Click to expand...

That is one in the same. If you approve a tradition that deprives certain groups of common dignity, you are opposing that group as well.


Lursa said:
Case in point: many people objecting to SSM said that they supported civil unions for gays. What's the difference here? The difference is that people don't mind the state sanctioning it, even recognize gays have the same right to the same 'things' attached to marriage, just not the 'word,' what the tradition means to them. They don't want to deny gays anything but their perception of a tradition that they apparently hold.
Click to expand...

Yes, they want to deny gays the sense of equality, and civil unions failed because they were comparable to "separate but equal." None of those who supported civil unions but not marriage (of which there were always few) even cared enough to check if these granted the same rights, before making false equivalences like yours. Until DOMA was tossed, **no civil union could even possibly grant the same rights as marriage, in fact about 1000 fewer rights**. Even at the state level, they always operated under different rules (cohabitation, check ins by social workers etc).

In short, civil unions failed because no one accepted settling for them! They were a ****bag sandwich compromise that pleased no one.
 
Last edited:
Lursa said:
I said none of those things, nor did I even imply them.

The fact that while something can be both traditional and bigoted, it's also true that something can be traditional and not bigoted, as your admission that you said that not allowing women to join the Boy Scouts/golf club didn't make someone bigoted against women indicates. (Altho it actually could mean exactly that...just not necessarily)
Click to expand...

Assume a person who hates homosexuals with a vengeance owns a small duplex and occupies one of the units. Can he be forced by law to rent the other unit to homosexuals, such that he's constantly made aware of whatever activities are taking place on the other side of the common wall? After all, he is engaging in business by renting housing for profit. And if he's renting a room in his house, same answer? Does every person who engages in any transaction that involves commerce, to any degree, waive his freedoms of association, speech, and privacy by doing so?

What about an artist who paints portraits for a living and detests homosexuality as sinful? If a homosexual couple asks him to paint a portrait of them, partially clothed and locked in a fond embrace, can a public accommodation law require him to do it? How about a criminal lawyer who hates homosexuals--should he be considered a public accommodation, so that he has to defend a homosexual client who requests it? If you didn't know, the state public accommodation law at issue in Roberts v. Jaycees applied to "any business." Should only people you and your friends like have constitutional rights? Shouldn't icky haters be punished for daring not to approve of everything good so-called liberals have deemed noble and wonderful?
 
matchlight said:
Assume a person who hates homosexuals with a vengeance owns a small duplex and occupies one of the units. Can he be forced by law to rent the other unit to homosexuals, such that he's constantly made aware of whatever activities are taking place on the other side of the common wall? After all, he is engaging in business by renting housing for profit. And if he's renting a room in his house, same answer? Does every person who engages in any transaction that involves commerce, to any degree, waive his freedoms of association, speech, and privacy by doing so?

What about an artist who paints portraits for a living and detests homosexuality as sinful? If a homosexual couple asks him to paint a portrait of them, partially clothed and locked in a fond embrace, can a public accommodation law require him to do it? How about a criminal lawyer who hates homosexuals--should he be considered a public accommodation, so that he has to defend a homosexual client who requests it? If you didn't know, the state public accommodation law at issue in Roberts v. Jaycees applied to "any business." Should only people you and your friends like have constitutional rights? Shouldn't icky haters be punished for daring not to approve of everything good so-called liberals have deemed noble and wonderful?
Click to expand...

They can "not approve" all they like. What they can not do is "discriminate".
 
Bob Blaylock said:
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?
Click to expand...

Actually, there are multiple passages of polygamy within the Bible.

Answer: The question of polygamy is an interesting one in that most people today view polygamy as immoral while the Bible nowhere explicitly condemns it. The first instance of polygamy/bigamy in the Bible was that of Lamech in Genesis 4:19: “Lamech married two women.” Several prominent men in the Old Testament were polygamists. Abraham, Jacob, David, Solomon, and others all had multiple wives. In 2 Samuel 12:8, God, speaking through the prophet Nathan, said that if David’s wives and concubines were not enough, He would have given David even more. Solomon had 700 wives and 300 concubines (essentially wives of a lower status), according to 1 Kings 11:3. What are we to do with these instances of polygamy in the Old Testament? There are three questions that need to be answered: 1) Why did God allow polygamy in the Old Testament? 2) How does God view polygamy today? 3) Why did it change?

Read more: Why did God allow polygamy / bigamy in the Bible?
Click to expand...

Should polygamy be legal then?
 
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...
Did you really just say that?
 
sawdust said:
Personally I don't care who gets married. You are mixing individual rights, which I agree should be protected under the law with forcing someone to do work in support of an institution they oppose. If someone doesn't want to work on a gay wedding, why would the gay people want their work and why should the government be able to force them to do work they object to?
Click to expand...

Then if someone opposed blacks getting married or interfaith weddings or interracial marriages, then it's ok for than to refuse service to than as well?
 
Bob Blaylock said:
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?
Click to expand...

Hatuey said:
Actually, there are multiple passages of polygamy within the Bible.
Click to expand...

Irrelevant.

Even polygamous marriages are still between men and women; and never between women and women or between men and men. Can you find anything in the Bible that indicates otherwise?
 
Bob Blaylock said:
Irrelevant.

Even polygamous marriages are still between men and women; and never between women and women or between men and men. Can you find anything in the Bible that indicates otherwise?
Click to expand...

and there you have it, when proven wrong and examples prove your already proven meaningless logic wrong claim it doesn't matter AWESOME!

1.) the bibles is MEANINGLESS to equal rights
2.) YOU have been saying a man and woman and even when that is shown not to be true you ignore it. CLassic.

Sorry you are against equal rights and the constitution but those things are winning and your opinions are not.
 
Bob Blaylock said:
Irrelevant. Even polygamous marriages are still between men and women;
Click to expand...

No, no - you stated that marriage has always been between man and woman - man and women is definitely not the same thing. That makes your claim about the unchanging nature of marriage clearly wrong.

Calling it irrelevant because it proves your claim wrong only makes you look like an even more ignorant adherent of the bible. Remember, your statement is that marriage has remained unchanged and has been defined by 1 man and 1 woman. That is proven false by the fact that polygamous marriages existed. Hell, polygamy in the Bible demonstrates that historically marriage wasn't a static institution that couldn't be changed in accordance with social norm.
 
Last edited:
Hatuey said:
No, no - you stated that marriage has always been between man and woman - man and women is definitely not the same thing. That makes your claim about the unchanging nature of marriage clearly wrong.

Calling it irrelevant because it proves your claim wrong only makes you look like an even more ignorant adherent of the bible. Remember, your statement is that marriage has remained unchanged and has been defined by 1 man and 1 woman. That is proven false by the fact that polygamous marriages existed. Hell, polygamy in the Bible demonstrates that historically marriage wasn't a static institution that couldn't be changed in accordance with social norm.
Click to expand...

straw_man_convention.jpg
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom