• 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!

Can a person be against Gay Marriage and not be a bigot?

Can a person be anti Gay marriage and not be a bigot?

  • Total voters
    70
Dav said:
We mostly just hear the views (1) of people who speak the loudest, and (2) which are presented by the opposition in order to make the position look ignorant and bigoted.

I think that most people who are against gay marriage don't really know why they are against gay marriage, and thus don't speak out. That doesn't mean that they don't have legitimate concerns- and thanks admitting that those legitimate concerns exist.



Changing a legal definition which has been used for thousands of years and was not even disputed until very recently should not happen until society itself has accepted it, i.e. has put it to a 50 + 1 vote.
Click to expand...
Basic human rights should never have to be put to a 50%+1 vote.

Can you imagine if civil rights for blacks and other minorities had to be put that that vote?
Can you imagine if inter-racial marriage had to be put to that vote?
Can you imagine if the right of women to vote had to be put to that vote?

We'd still be living in a country where all of our rights were decided by rich white landowners.
 
Dav said:
We mostly just hear the views (1) of people who speak the loudest, and (2) which are presented by the opposition in order to make the position look ignorant and bigoted.

I think that most people who are against gay marriage don't really know why they are against gay marriage, and thus don't speak out. That doesn't mean that they don't have legitimate concerns- and thanks admitting that those legitimate concerns exist.

Changing a legal definition which has been used for thousands of years and was not even disputed until very recently should not happen until society itself has accepted it, i.e. has put it to a 50 + 1 vote.
Click to expand...

So because something is legally define for thousands of years, it should never be changed? Is everything that has ever been legally defined for thousands of years acceptable?

The dispute has only become recent because the social status of gays has changed recently. When once it was against social norms to be out, it is now, recently, acceptable. The reason it has not been disputed is because it was, until recently, not at all acceptable to be gay.
 
disneydude said:
Basic human rights should never have to be put to a 50%+1 vote.

Can you imagine if civil rights for blacks and other minorities had to be put that that vote?
Click to expand...

It was, in a way; every major civil rights legislation was just that- legislation, and as such, had to be voted on by a representative body. Constitutional Amendments have to be voted on too.

Can you imagine if inter-racial marriage had to be put to that vote?
Click to expand...

I suspect that it would eventually have been allowed, as it is now.
600px-Interracial_marriage_US_1972_2002.png


Of course, it was decided by the Supreme Court because it was unconstitutional in the first place, where the current definition of marriage is not.

Can you imagine if the right of women to vote had to be put to that vote?
Click to expand...

It was, actually. The 19th Amendment was approved democratically, as are all amendments to the Constitution.


Alex said:
So because something is legally define for thousands of years, it should never be changed? Is everything that has ever been legally defined for thousands of years acceptable?
Click to expand...

I never said that. In fact, I support gay marriage. I just think it should be approved democratically rather than through judicial activism.

The dispute has only become recent because the social status of gays has changed recently. When once it was against social norms to be out, it is now, recently, acceptable. The reason it has not been disputed is because it was, until recently, not at all acceptable to be gay.
Click to expand...

That's partially true, but the fact is that there are still people who consider it acceptable to be gay and are against gay marriage because they don't want their traditions to be overturned.
 
Last edited:
Dav said:
It was, in a way; every major civil rights legislation was just that- legislation, and as such, had to be voted on by a representative body. Constitutional Amendments have to be voted on too.

I suspect that it would eventually have been allowed, as it is now.
600px-Interracial_marriage_US_1972_2002.png


Of course, it was decided by the Supreme Court because it was unconstitutional in the first place, where the current definition of marriage is not.

It was, actually. The 19th Amendment was approved democratically, as are all amendments to the Constitution.

I never said that. In fact, I support gay marriage. I just think it should be approved democratically rather than through judicial activism.

That's partially true, but the fact is that there are still people who consider it acceptable to be gay and are against gay marriage because they don't want their traditions to be overturned.
Click to expand...

So the 19th Amendment was democratically approved but the 14th was not? Is it judicial activism if the Court applies the 14th Amendment to same-sex marriage?

I also prefer that things happen in a democratic way, but the 14th Amendment was passed democratically, so if the Court applies that to the issue of same-sex marriage, then it was done according to our system of government, a Constitutional Democracy. Our 50 + 1 vote system has limits.
 
Navy Pride said:
I am asking the people who are pro gay marriage this question..........
Click to expand...
They can but you aren't one of them, so it's a moot point. I already saw your "Sodom and Gomorrah" comment which kind of established your irrelevance (outside of the loonier areas of the Buy-bull belt and Iran.)
 
Alex said:
So the 19th Amendment was democratically approved but the 14th was not? Is it judicial activism if the Court applies the 14th Amendment to same-sex marriage?
Click to expand...

Yes, it is.

The main argument of same-sex marriage being a Constitutional right is that it violates the Equal Protection Clause in the 14th Amendment. But gays do have equal protection under the law. Defining marriage as something that is only between a man and a woman doesn't exclude gays from the process, it just doesn't allow anyone to marry someone of the same sex. Now, in Loving vs. Virginia, the case was made that defining marriage based on race violated equal protection, but it would be very hard to make the same argument for defining marriage based on gender. Intent matters when interpreting the Constitution, and whoever wrote the 14th Amendment likely didn't even think of gay marriage as plausible, since the very idea itself is a new one.

Apparently, there have actually been cases brought to court on this issue, and they've all been rejected:

Loving v. Virginia - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 
Being against gay marriage for Politically Incorrect reasons makes you a bigot...well, the left will probably find a way to call you a racist.

:lol:
 
EpicDude86 said:
Being against gay marriage for Politically Incorrect reasons makes you a bigot...well, the left will probably find a way to call you a racist.

:lol:
Click to expand...

Yup, and if you support gay marriage for any reason, the right will find a way to call you names too. You just can't win for trying.
 
Cephus said:
Yup, and if you support gay marriage for any reason, the right will find a way to call you names too. You just can't win for trying.
Click to expand...

Exactly, and see, then they call you a fag-enabler. Whatever the hell you've enabled them to do I may never know.
 
Korimyr the Rat said:
Last vote I saw was the Maine repeal, in which there were two major viewpoints: liberals and bigots.

As others have pointed out, there are sensible arguments for opposition to gay marriage. But instead of those arguments, we get a whole bunch of "it's just wrong" and unseemly preoccupation with buttsex.
Click to expand...
It's too bad they can't see the brilliance behind the "you're either for gay marriage or you're a bigot" argument. Retards.
 
This is just more, "If you disagree with me, you're a douchebag" nonsense
 
Dav said:
Being against gay marriage does not make one a bigot.

Being intolerant of those who are against gay marriage, on the other hand, does make one a bigot.
Click to expand...

You seem confused as to the definition of bigot.

" a person obstinately or intolerantly devoted to his or her own opinions and prejudices; especially : one who regards or treats the members of a group (as a racial or ethnic group) with hatred and intolerance"

If the shoe fits...
 
EpicDude86 said:
Being against gay marriage for Politically Incorrect reasons makes you a bigot...well, the left will probably find a way to call you a racist.

:lol:
Click to expand...

That has sort of become a one size fits all defense for bigotry and racism... Not you neccesarily, but people seem to think they can just say stuff like "black people suck" and then whenever anybody points out that that is a racist thing to say, they come back with the "you liberals just think everything is racist because you can't argue the facts" or whatever... It's a pretty tired line at this point... Bigotry is a real thing. We call it out when we see it.
 
teamosil said:
That has sort of become a one size fits all defense for bigotry and racism... Not you neccesarily, but people seem to think they can just say stuff like "black people suck" and then whenever anybody points out that that is a racist thing to say, they come back with the "you liberals just think everything is racist because you can't argue the facts" or whatever... It's a pretty tired line at this point... Bigotry is a real thing. We call it out when we see it.
Click to expand...

It's sad that racism has become a 'go-to' word. :( I blame the 'race card'.
 
EpicDude86 said:
It's sad that racism has become a 'go-to' word. :( I blame the 'race card'.
Click to expand...

Certainly sometimes people do erroneously call something racism. But for every time I've seen that happen I see 10 cases where it is accurate. If somebody is saying things that get called racist say once every year or something, and they're convinced that whatever they said really isn't racist, hey, maybe they're right. But in my opinion, if somebody is saying things that people consider racist or bigotted every few days, then that's a real problem and something the person would be wise to take very seriously and to do some heavy self examination.
 
teamosil said:
Certainly sometimes people do erroneously call something racism. But for every time I've seen that happen I see 10 cases where it is accurate. If somebody is saying things that get called racist say once every year or something, and they're convinced that whatever they said really isn't racist, hey, maybe they're right. But in my opinion, if somebody is saying things that people consider racist or bigotted every few days, then that's a real problem and something the person would be wise to take very seriously and to do some heavy self examination.
Click to expand...

There are very, very, very few real racists left in america. Prejudice is the new Racist, and if we look at definitions of these words (Go back a couple decades when they weren't all blanket terms) you'll see there's a difference. Point is, we need to address issues and ignore name callers/name calling entirely. We're not children are we? (Hard glare at Joe Wilson and Alan Grayson)

If someone says something prejudiced like: "Black folks sho' does love them that fried chickins" then be like, well Empirical evidence proves that while the average majority percentage of workers at KFC is African American, the consumption of friend chicken in these United States is performed by an 40% white, 40% black, some Mexicans, and a few Canucks.
 
EpicDude86 said:
There are very, very, very few real racists left in america.
Click to expand...

Unfortunately that is not true. For example, if a black person and a white person both apply for the same job with the same resume, the white person is still two and a half times more likely to get an interview. That means racism is extremely widespread.

I suspect that most those hiring managers who are choosing to interview the white applicant rather than the black one, despite them both having exactly the same qualifications doesn't even consciously think he is holding racist views, but certainly he is. In my opinion, that's why it is so important that people continue to call out racism when they see it- because a large block of people don't seem to be able to identify it in themselves.

If the price of that is a few folks now and again getting falsely accused of racism, which is probably inevitable, then I guess that's the price we need to pay. Certainly that isn't as bad as allowing that kind of brutal racism to persist.
 
Last edited:
Dav said:
I think that most people who are against gay marriage don't really know why they are against gay marriage, and thus don't speak out. That doesn't mean that they don't have legitimate concerns- and thanks admitting that those legitimate concerns exist.
Click to expand...

Yes, I'd say that's a fair assessment. On the other hand, if you can't articulate why you're opposed to something there's a very good chance that you simply don't have a very good reason for it.

And it's easy for me to admit that legitimate concerns exist, because I do have a strong interest in marriage and preserving the sanctity of marriage. I understand being reluctant to change especially when the institution is severely and increasingly deprecated and when it has lost much of its original value because of previous liberal reforms.

Dav said:
Changing a legal definition which has been used for thousands of years and was not even disputed until very recently should not happen until society itself has accepted it, i.e. has put it to a 50 + 1 vote.
Click to expand...

Change the law and society will follow. Frankly, I don't believe anything important should ever be put before a "50% + 1" vote because the masses simply aren't responsible enough to pick their lawmakers wisely, much less to write their own laws.

Taylor said:
It's too bad they can't see the brilliance behind the "you're either for gay marriage or you're a bigot" argument. Retards.
Click to expand...

Personally, I think it's too bad that people can't see past the issue of whether or not their position makes them a "bigot" to get to the issue of whether or not their position is right. Everyone's so up in arms about what things are called that they've forgotten about what they do.
 
teamosil said:
Unfortunately that is not true. For example, if a black person and a white person both apply for the same job with the same resume, the white person is still two and a half times more likely to get an interview. That means racism is extremely widespread.

I suspect that most those hiring managers who are choosing to interview the white applicant rather than the black one, despite them both having exactly the same qualifications doesn't even consciously think he is holding racist views, but certainly he is. In my opinion, that's why it is so important that people continue to call out racism when they see it- because a large block of people don't seem to be able to identify it in themselves.

If the price of that is a few folks now and again getting falsely accused of racism, which is probably inevitable, then I guess that's the price we need to pay. Certainly that isn't as bad as allowing that kind of brutal racism to persist.
Click to expand...

1. I'll take Affirmative Action for 500, Alex.

2. Did you care to read the disclaimer? Failing that did you try and verify the site at all? Disclaimer
 
teamosil said:
You can read the whole study here- http://www.econ.brown.edu/econ/events/pager&western1.pdf

The study was done by Brown, Northwestern and Princeton unniversities and the NSF. It's as credible as you get. I just post that jobbankusa URL instead because it gives a brief summary instead of the 28 pages of the whole study.
Click to expand...

Do it have in there the statistics or percentages of how many people, and of each race, apply for said jobs? I have this nagging feeling that they're playing the results to fit the agenda. But so far it looks legit.
 
EpicDude86 said:
Do it have in there the statistics or percentages of how many people, and of each race, apply for said jobs? I have this nagging feeling that they're playing the results to fit the agenda. But so far it looks legit.
Click to expand...

They have two black people and two white people apply for each job. They actually did the entire test twice. First in the Milwauke metro area, where they had every applicant apply for the same 350 jobs. Then they repeated the experiment in the New York metro area with different teams a year later. That time they applied for 341 jobs each. They got basically the same results both times. In the NY metro area white applicants were around 2.15 times more likely to get the interview and in the Milwauke metro area 2.5 times more likely.
 
Last edited:
teamosil said:
They have two black people and two white people apply for each job. They actually did the entire test twice. First in the Milwauke metro area, where they had every applicant apply for the same 350 jobs. Then they repeated the experiment in the New York metro area with different teams a year later. That time they applied for 341 jobs each. They got basically the same results both times. In the NY metro area white applicants were around 2.15 times more likely to get the interview and in the Milwauke metro area 2.5 times more likely.
Click to expand...

Hmm. That's pretty weird. Though I'd like to see this study conducted in the South. Also, What were the interviewer's races? Where were the stores located? etc. There are so many variables I'd love to see addressed. Don't get me wrong though, this is interesting as heck, but it doesn't prove racism. It doesn't prove anything beyond the fact that it might be racism, because we don't know the exact reason why this ratio exists. That's why I need more DATA!
 
Dav said:
Yes, it is.

The main argument of same-sex marriage being a Constitutional right is that it violates the Equal Protection Clause in the 14th Amendment. But gays do have equal protection under the law. Defining marriage as something that is only between a man and a woman doesn't exclude gays from the process, it just doesn't allow anyone to marry someone of the same sex. Now, in Loving vs. Virginia, the case was made that defining marriage based on race violated equal protection, but it would be very hard to make the same argument for defining marriage based on gender. Intent matters when interpreting the Constitution, and whoever wrote the 14th Amendment likely didn't even think of gay marriage as plausible, since the very idea itself is a new one.

Apparently, there have actually been cases brought to court on this issue, and they've all been rejected:

Loving v. Virginia - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Click to expand...

An essence of being gay is to share deep emotions and life with a person of the same sex, so legally allowing a gay person to marry (the expression of that emotion) a person of the opposite sex is no right at all. Loving v. Virginia struck down similar arguments. The Court typically uses strict scrutiny to deal with issues of race, which probably would not be used on gay issues, but it could still pass same-sex marriage by way of rational basis (used in past cases involving gay rights) or even intermediate scrutiny (not as likely).

The intent of the 14th Amendment was to prevent the States from denying people their rights under the Constitution. It makes no mention of race, regardless of being a catalyst to its creation. As a matter of fact, the framers of the 14th Amendment had the opportunity to include race in it, but they chose not to.

"On December 5, 1865, Congressman Thaddeus Stevens, another prominent Radical Republican, proposed a constitutional amendment declaring, 'All national and state laws shall be equally applicable to every citizen, and no discrimination shall be made on account of race and color.'"

As we know, that Amendment was not passed but the more broad version was. It provides for all citizens to receive Equal Protection.

If Congress, at the time, meant for the 14th Amendment to be strictly used for race issues only, why was it not passed that way?

14th Amendment Site
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom