• 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

mpg

DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 22, 2005
Messages
7,795
Reaction score
1,784
Location
Milford, CT
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian
Which ones are examples of bigotry?

Can someone please fix the spelling in the question? Thank you.
 
Clearly Obama is a radical right-wing hateful homophobe.
 
I wonder if Obama and Michelle will be opening a waffle house in Rancho Mirage ?
 
I say both. I don't see why their overall political position is relevant to the question.
 
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.
 
Clearly Obama is a radical right-wing hateful homophobe.

More likely he was waiting for the rest of the country to stop being such
 
Which ones are examples of bigotry?

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

Well, first we have to define bigotry: Bigotry | Define Bigotry at Dictionary.com

1. stubborn and complete intolerance of any creed, belief, or opinion that differs from one's own.

2. the actions, beliefs, prejudices, etc., of a bigot.

So what we can see from that is that people can oppose SSM for bigoted reasons, or for reasons that are not bigoted. Opposition to SSM itself is not bigotry. So your poll question is unanswerable.
 
When Obama and many other political leaders who knew better opposed SSM it was out of cowardice. For others, it is bigotry.
 
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.
 
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.

Yeah, you said it better than I did. I used the example of duck hunters but when applying it to politics or a law, it's the same thing. I think we overuse "bigotry" and that's wrong. People have reasons to oppose (insert something here), and their reasons may be unpopular, but that doesn't make them bigots by the definition of the word that I always knew.

People are stubborn on both sides of an issue, too.
 
It depends on why they oppose it. If its because they see gays and lesbians as deviants, then yeah its bigotry.
 
Yeah, you said it better than I did. I used the example of duck hunters but when applying it to politics or a law, it's the same thing. I think we overuse "bigotry" and that's wrong. People have reasons to oppose (insert something here), and their reasons may be unpopular, but that doesn't make them bigots by the definition of the word that I always knew.

People are stubborn on both sides of an issue, too.

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.
 
In a free country, on issues of sexual morality, each individual should be free to believe as they wish as long as those beliefs don't involving harming others, unless they want to be harmed in a friendly sort of way.
 
Well, first we have to define bigotry: Bigotry | Define Bigotry at Dictionary.com



So what we can see from that is that people can oppose SSM for bigoted reasons, or for reasons that are not bigoted. Opposition to SSM itself is not bigotry. So your poll question is unanswerable.
If it isn't necessarily bigotry, you have to give people the benefit of the doubt.
 
In a free country, on issues of sexual morality, each individual should be free to believe as they wish as long as those beliefs don't involving harming others, unless they want to be harmed in a friendly sort of way.

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.
 
If it isn't necessarily bigotry, you have to give people the benefit of the doubt.

I tend to agree with that.
 
In a free country, on issues of sexual morality, each individual should be free to believe as they wish as long as those beliefs don't involving harming others,

Well, didn't expect to see someone supporting bigotry.
 
It depends on why they oppose it. If its because they see gays and lesbians as deviants, then yeah its bigotry.

i've yet to hear any other reason

"It's tradition" is not a sufficient reason to oppress
 
It depends on why they oppose it. If its because they see gays and lesbians as deviants, then yeah its bigotry.

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.
 
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.

Well said, Redress.
 
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.

No, if someone enjoys a gentile spanking, who am I to stand in the way?
 
No, if someone enjoys a gentile spanking, who am I to stand in the way?

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.
 
Well, didn't expect to see someone supporting bigotry.

I don't think that someone following their religious opinions with respect to marriage is bigotry. I think forcing someone else's views about marriage on those with religious objections violates the separation of church and state and approaches fascism. I think the state has the power and responsibility to define marriage but individuals should have the ability to set their own moral standards. I don't think Christian bakers should be forced to bake cakes for gay weddings or photographers be forced to photograph occasions they morally object to. That's a far cry from the power of the state.
 
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.
 
I don't think that someone following their religious opinions with respect to marriage is bigotry. I think forcing someone else's views about marriage on those with religious objections violates the separation of church and state and approaches fascism. I think the state has the power and responsibility to define marriage but individuals should have the ability to set their own moral standards. I don't think Christian bakers should be forced to bake cakes for gay weddings or photographers be forced to photograph occasions they morally object to. That's a far cry from the power of the state.

That's nice (and bigoted), but you clearly supported any bigotry whatsoever in your post:

In a free country, on issues of sexual morality, each individual should be free to believe as they wish as long as those beliefs don't involving harming others,

That would include non-religious bigotry.
 
Back
Top Bottom