• 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
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

I wonder if we could prove that Love knows no gender...though we'd have to prove love exists beyond a chemical reaction in the brain and it does it fact ignore gender when determining who to love.
 
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!

That second link I posted is 28 pages of data. :) It goes into a lot of detail. It's pretty damn convincing. I've posted this study a bunch of times on my other board, and so far, every potential concern anybody raised with the methodology has been addressed in the study. For example, they even did things like measured how frequently the applicants made eye contact and made sure to choose teams that matched exactly even on tiny things like that, they ensured that they dressed almost identically, they exactly scripted what the applicants would say, if anything, when they dropped off the resumes, the picked applicants with typically professional conservative looks, etc. They even found that if the white applicants indicated on their applications that they spent 18 monts in prison for cocaine distribution and the black applicants reported that they had no criminal record, the white applicants were still more likely to get the interviews.

The only thing that differs between the applicants is their race, so a massive difference like that in how often they get interviews can't really be explained by anything other than racism.

Hiring is very subjective. I've been hiring people for about 10 years and the truth is that a large part of the decision process is based on gut feelings about which applicant would be better for the job. For low end jobs like the ones in the study it's even more subjective because the qualifications aren't really so important, so they're left relying even more heavily on gut instincts. At that level unconscious racism would definitely be a huge factor. Maybe the person hiring doesn't think they're deciding who to interview on the basis of race at all. Maybe they even consider themselves to be strongly against racism. But then they just see the applicants and get a gut instinct that the white applicant is more professional or trustworthy or who knows what. So, I wouldn't guess that it is consciously malicious racism, but it's definitely racism nonetheless.
 
That second link I posted is 28 pages of data. :) It goes into a lot of detail. It's pretty damn convincing. I've posted this study a bunch of times on my other board, and so far, every potential concern anybody raised with the methodology has been addressed in the study. For example, they even did things like measured how frequently the applicants made eye contact and made sure to choose teams that matched exactly even on tiny things like that, they ensured that they dressed almost identically, they exactly scripted what the applicants would say, if anything, when they dropped off the resumes, the picked applicants with typically professional conservative looks, etc. They even found that if the white applicants indicated on their applications that they spent 18 monts in prison for cocaine distribution and the black applicants reported that they had no criminal record, the white applicants were still more likely to get the interviews.

The only thing that differs between the applicants is their race, so a massive difference like that in how often they get interviews can't really be explained by anything other than racism.

Hiring is very subjective. I've been hiring people for about 10 years and the truth is that a large part of the decision process is based on gut feelings about which applicant would be better for the job. For low end jobs like the ones in the study it's even more subjective because the qualifications aren't really so important, so they're left relying even more heavily on gut instincts. At that level unconscious racism would definitely be a huge factor. Maybe the person hiring doesn't think they're deciding who to interview on the basis of race at all. Maybe they even consider themselves to be strongly against racism. But then they just see the applicants and get a gut instinct that the white applicant is more professional or trustworthy or who knows what. So, I wouldn't guess that it is consciously malicious racism, but it's definitely racism nonetheless.

"but it's definitely racism nonetheless" I still think we're not using the right word here. It might be subconscious PREJUDICE but really, you'd be hard pressed to find a logical human being who honestly thinks the color of one's skin makes them any better or crappier than someone else.
 
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.

What if someone's perception was "black people are lazy good-for-nothings that need to get off welfare and actually raise their kids to not be thugs... sure not all black people are like that, but most are, and that's the perception I have until proven otherwise"? I think what's happened to racism in America is that it has gone from being an overt, political thing to being something more subtle. People form generalized opinions, but justify it to themselves, or fail to see that they hold that opinion. It's never going to magically go away, especially in such a short time frame.
 
What if someone's perception was "black people are lazy good-for-nothings that need to get off welfare and actually raise their kids to not be thugs... sure not all black people are like that, but most are, and that's the perception I have until proven otherwise"? I think what's happened to racism in America is that it has gone from being an overt, political thing to being something more subtle. People form generalized opinions, but justify it to themselves, or fail to see that they hold that opinion. It's never going to magically go away, especially in such a short time frame.

alright, I'll rephrase.

Racism by its real definition, is dead. Discrimination on the grounds of Prejudice and Bigotry is alive and well and has taken up the banner of racism.
 
"but it's definitely racism nonetheless" I still think we're not using the right word here. It might be subconscious PREJUDICE but really, you'd be hard pressed to find a logical human being who honestly thinks the color of one's skin makes them any better or crappier than someone else.

The distinction between prejudice and racism that I make is this:

"Racism - Racial prejudice and discrimination that are supported by institutional power and authority. The critical element that differentiates racism from prejudice and discrimination is the use of institutional power and authority to support prejudices and enforce discriminatory behaviors in systematic ways with far-reaching outcomes and effects."

-Enid Lee, Deborah Menkart and Margo Okazawa-Rey (eds.) Beyond Heroes and Holidays: A Practical Guide to K-12 Anti-Racist, Multicultural Education and Staff Development

So, to me, your earlier example of "black people all like fried chicken" is only prejudice, but when prejudice is tied in with the application of institutional power and it has effects like making it dramatically harder for black people to get jobs, it crosses the line into racism whether it is conscious or unconscious.

Either way though, we agree on the substance- employers are prejudiced against black people and that is causing a situation where black people have a much harder time getting jobs. Whatever we want to call that, it's a serious problem.

This is a good discussion! Much appreciated!
 
The distinction between prejudice and racism that I make is this:



So, to me, your earlier example of "black people all like fried chicken" is only prejudice, but when prejudice is tied in with the application of institutional power and it has effects like making it dramatically harder for black people to get jobs, it crosses the line into racism whether it is conscious or unconscious.

Either way though, we agree on the substance- employers are prejudiced against black people and that is causing a situation where black people have a much harder time getting jobs. Whatever we want to call that, it's a serious problem.

This is a good discussion! Much appreciated!


I kind of agree with you, but hate and discrimination don't change their core definition just because they cross from our own minds into the Institution. They simply just have more severe consequences.
 
I am asking the people who are pro gay marriage this question..........

I'd say "no". Let's be honest - everyone against homosexual marriage believes that something is wrong with a homosexual individual. At best, it could be some sort of genetic 'disease', and while they may sympathize, they don't believe that homosexuals should have certain rights simply because they believe homosexuality to be an abnormal or 'wrong' practice. At worst, homosexuality is a choice, a perversion that leads individuals into vile sexual acts with members of the same sex. Those who oppose homosexual equality - including the right to marry someone of the same sex - have various opinions that run the gamut between these two extremes. But in no way, shape, or form do they believe homosexuals to be entirely 'equal' to heterosexuals.

Seriously, such a vigorous defense of the institution of marriage from homosexual inclusion is perplexing enough to begin with, and this problem is exacerbated by those individuals who insist they are not prejudiced, but vehemently oppose homosexual marriage based on arbitrary factors and dubious actualities ("babies do best when raised by heterosexual parents", or "the people should decide if it's right or wrong"). In my opinion, we should focus on educating the public on homosexuality so as to eventually eliminate this bigotry.
 
I'd say "no". Let's be honest - everyone against homosexual marriage believes that something is wrong with a homosexual individual. At best, it could be some sort of genetic 'disease', and while they may sympathize, they don't believe that homosexuals should have certain rights simply because they believe homosexuality to be an abnormal or 'wrong' practice.

I understand how someone could disagree with such a position, but how is that position the bigoted kind of wrong instead of some other kind of wrong?
 
I understand how someone could disagree with such a position, but how is that position the bigoted kind of wrong instead of some other kind of wrong?

'Some other kind of wrong' being what, exactly?
 
Don't flatter yourself Navy....you should be able to figure it out through my answer.

Why would anyone in this country feel that THEY are entitled to certain rights and privleges while denying those same rights and privleges to another human being?

I believe that everyone is entitled to the same rights and privileges that I am. If I felt otherwise....I would be selfish and bigoted.

Got it.... so if a gay guy wants to marry a gay woman, he and she should have the same rights to do so as a straight couple.
 
Call me whatever you like: Gay marriage is an absurd invention of the extreme left.

Although conservatives are staunchly opposed to homosexuality on the grounds of it being irrefutably immoral, conservatives are not "anti-gay." Conservatives believe that gays should not be discrimnated against, and should be allowed the basic rights afforded to normal people, but the idea that a man and a man can be called a "married couple" is so preposterous that one has to wonder at how insane liberal policy in American can go. Next, I suppose liberals are going to be storming the streets for the right of animals to marry...:doh

No, they will want the right to marry animals.... and attempt to have children.
 
'Some other kind of wrong' being what, exactly?

Like "factually inaccurate" wrong, or "disproved evidence" wrong, or "illogical interpretation" wrong, or any other hew of wrong you can dream up.

What makes the point of view that homosexuality is some kind of error automatically bigoted? Why bigoted specifically?
 
Got it.... so if a gay guy wants to marry a gay woman, he and she should have the same rights to do so as a straight couple.

He and she do have the same rights.
 
Call me whatever you like: Gay marriage is an absurd invention of the extreme left.

Although conservatives are staunchly opposed to homosexuality on the grounds of it being irrefutably immoral, conservatives are not "anti-gay." Conservatives believe that gays should not be discrimnated against, and should be allowed the basic rights afforded to normal people, but the idea that a man and a man can be called a "married couple" is so preposterous that one has to wonder at how insane liberal policy in American can go. Next, I suppose liberals are going to be storming the streets for the right of animals to marry...:doh

This post is just flat out ridiculous... You can't have your cake and eat it too. If you want to go around ranting about how god hates gay people and that they should be denied the right to marry, fine, be that way, but you can't do that and at the same time pretend you aren't anti-gay and that you oppose discriminating against gay people.

It sounds to me like you want to discriminate against gay people, and you do carry around biggotted feelings against them, but deep down you know that's wrong, so you're tacking an incongruous disclaimer on the end rejecting your own stance...
 
Last edited:
This post is just flat out ridiculous... You can't have your cake and eat it too. If you want to go around ranting about how god hates gay people and that they should be denied the right to marry, fine, be that way, but you can't do that and at the same time pretend you aren't anti-gay and that you oppose discriminating against gay people.

Being anti-incest makes me anti-family, then?

Being anti-dependent 'marriage makes me anti-children?

I oppose children marrying so I must therefore oppose child labor laws, according to you.
 
Last edited:
I keep seeing people say gays don't have equal rights. But any man is free to marry any woman who is agreeable, just as any woman may marry any man. Seems equal to me. Now for any man to marry any other man seems like that would be an additional right.
 
No, that would make you anti-people-who-commit-incest though.

Not the people, but the behavior. There's a difference.

People are not illegal, though their behaviors can be.

If I object to gays doing one thing that doesn't mean I object to gays doing some other thing. Each behavior is judged on it's own merits.
 
Last edited:
Not the people, but the behavior. There's a difference.

Not really. It's like saying "I'm not anti-semetic, I just believe that practicing Judaism is morally wrong and I support laws making it illegal to attend Jewish temples".
 
I keep seeing people say gays don't have equal rights. But any man is free to marry any woman who is agreeable, just as any woman may marry any man. Seems equal to me. Now for any man to marry any other man seems like that would be an additional right.

I can't believe how often seemingly reasonable people keep making this argument... It's so obviously ludicrous... To use my example above, it's like making a law saying that it is illegal to attend a Jewish temple and rationalizing it by arguing that it isn't discriminatory against Jews because they're still free to attend Christian Churches just like everybody else...
 
I keep seeing people say gays don't have equal rights. But any man is free to marry any woman who is agreeable, just as any woman may marry any man. Seems equal to me. Now for any man to marry any other man seems like that would be an additional right.

While naturally they are not created equal (for obvious reasons) under the law, are they theoretically equal? (Don't count "Assault on a Female" type laws, those don't count :lol:)
 
I keep seeing people say gays don't have equal rights. But any man is free to marry any woman who is agreeable, just as any woman may marry any man. Seems equal to me. Now for any man to marry any other man seems like that would be an additional right.

I love seeing this silly argument. Tell me...what if a man does not want to marry a woman but wants to marry a man? How is it then equal? Explain why that should be prohibited?
 
Not really. It's like saying "I'm not anti-semetic, I just believe that practicing Judaism is morally wrong and I support laws making it illegal to attend Jewish temples".

No one is stopping gays from associating with whomever they please, though.
 
Back
Top Bottom