• 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
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?

Its not a silly argument, its a fact. If a man doesn't want to marry a woman, thats fine. There is no law saying he must.
 
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 haven't yet seen this alleged "right" gays are being denied. Not once in 4 years on DP, never.

Maybe we should create such a right, but it does not exist today to claim it is being denied.
 
Last edited:
I haven't yet seen this alleged "right" gays are being denied. Not once in 4 years on DP, never.

How do you "see" a "right" though, Jerry? Rights are really just opinions that our ancestors had that stuck and we believe it today.
 
I haven't yet seen this alleged "right" gays are being denied. Not once in 4 years on DP, never.

Maybe we should create such a right, but it does not exist today to claim it is being denied.

In real life they are being denied the right to marry. Constitutionally they are being denied due process and equal protection.
 
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?

One of the reasons I can think of right off the bat - those who believe homosexuality to be 'wrong' aren't accepting of scientific studies that say homosexuality is not a mental deficiency; indeed, there is a wealth of accurate information out there, but for some reason this does not 'sway the masses'. We know individuals who are homosexual are as normal and well-adjusted as their heterosexual counterparts from a scientific and psychological standpoint. We know that homosexual couples are are as competent and loving of their children as their heterosexual counterparts. In all things, we see homsexual individuals and their couplings capable, yet we still have large swathes of people who refuse to acknowledge such a thing. Why? Given the wealth of unbiased, scientific information that has been provided on the issue, how many have disseminated that information and changed their opinion on homosexuality? And providing evidence that such anti-homosexual opinions are 'factually inaccurate' or that their interpretation is illogical often results in them simply reinforcing their position, specifically that something is 'wrong' with homosexuality, regardless of what any scientific or psychiatric study may say to the contrary.

But even those who fancy themselves unprejudiced yet against gay marriage cannot accurately explain why their views should not be considered bigotry. They claim that there is 'nothing wrong with gay people', yet do not believe that homosexuals should have the right to marry someone of the same sex. They vehemently defend the so-called 'institution's right' over those who wish to participate in it, using such dubious claims as 'marriage is between a man and woman' without offering any justification for their original claim that they are not prejudiced. Nor do they think that addressing homosexuality in a school is acceptable, either (heterosexuality, on the other hand, is perfectly fine). If these people are truly unbiased and free of prejudice, then I cannot imagine why they would object to such a thing. Do they not believe homosexuals to be equal to their heterosexual counterparts, and therefore deserved of all rights and privileges accorded to the latter? If so, then they wouldn't have a problem with marriage equality.
 
Originally Posted by Crunch
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.

I'm aware of that.... so how is a ban on gay marriage taking the rights away from gays that heterosexual people enjoy?
 
Its not a silly argument, its a fact. If a man doesn't want to marry a woman, thats fine. There is no law saying he must.

Straight people are allowed to marry people they find attractive. Gay people are not. Obviously you already know that though...
 
Last edited:
Straight people are allowed to marry people they find attractive. Gay people are not. Obviously you already know that though...

What the problem is, gays are first wanting to redefine the concept of marriage, then they want to claim they are being denied one of their basic rights.

They are as free to marry a person of the opposite sex as anyone else.... that is what marriage is.
 
Straight people are allowed to marry people they find attractive. Gay people are not. Obviously you already know that though...

So then call it like it really is. Gay people want additional rights.
 
What the problem is, gays are first wanting to redefine the concept of marriage, then they want to claim they are being denied one of their basic rights.

They are as free to marry a person of the opposite sex as anyone else.... that is what marriage is.

They don't want to redefine anything. They want to be included in the institution of marriage.
 
They don't want to redefine anything. They want to be included in the institution of marriage.

They can marry a person of the opposite sex just like everybody else, that is what marriage is.
 
What the problem is, gays are first wanting to redefine the concept of marriage, then they want to claim they are being denied one of their basic rights.

They are as free to marry a person of the opposite sex as anyone else.... that is what marriage is.

Here we go defining things again...you're going to get Jerry all riled up and he's going to go Captain Semantics on your ass.

Anyways, what most gays want I'm assuming is the same benefits afforded to married couples, benefits they weren't getting as civil unions, and as such they now want to take the word marriage to try and justify getting those benefits. Everyone is being a dick, across the board, both sides of the debate. It's not bigotry so much as it is stupidity from everyone involved. But, this post will likely get shot down/ignored and the debate will continue.
 
Here we go defining things again...you're going to get Jerry all riled up and he's going to go Captain Semantics on your ass.

Anyways, what most gays want I'm assuming is the same benefits afforded to married couples, benefits they weren't getting as civil unions, and as such they now want to take the word marriage to try and justify getting those benefits. Everyone is being a dick, across the board, both sides of the debate. It's not bigotry so much as it is stupidity from everyone involved. But, this post will likely get shot down/ignored and the debate will continue.

Some gays want the title, some gays just want the rights. It depends.
 
They can marry a person of the opposite sex just like everybody else, that is what marriage is.

Again, that makes no sense... They are GAY... You know what that means, so you know how silly that argument is...
 
Again, that makes no sense... They are GAY... You know what that means, so you know how silly that argument is...

It makes about as much sense as two hetero males getting a civil union if they want to NOT have the rights they're entitled to as heteros.


:lol:


Once again, this whole debate is asinine. I think gays may accidentally be the best trolls this planet has ever seen.

epicdude86-albums-stuff-picture1153-and-not-bigot.png
 
Last edited:
Again, that makes no sense... They are GAY... You know what that means, so you know how silly that argument is...

Not silly at all.... marriage, as defined is a union between a man and a woman, gays have that right today.... what they want to do is redefine marriage as a union between anything and anything.

They want to change the definition, then claim they are being discriminated against…. That is the silly argument.
 
Not silly at all.... marriage, as defined is a union between a man and a woman, gays have that right today.... what they want to do is redefine marriage as a union between anything and anything.

They want to change the definition, then claim they are being discriminated against…. That is the silly argument.

Actually 'they' want to redefine marriage as a civil contract between two willing individuals. Would you like to further distort the position of pro-gay marriage any more today?
 
Maybe looking at the question a different way will make it clearer.

Instead of asking yourself what gives gay people the right to marry, ask yourself what gives straight people the right to tell gay people who they can and cannot marry. Where is that in the constitution? What inalienable right to tell other people who to marry is there?
 
Back
Top Bottom