With the understanding that it CAN be depending on the reasons for opposition, is it a bigoted position in and of itself to oppose same sex marriage? For example, if it’s your religious beliefs that inform your opinion?
Yes.
A bigoted idea does not become less bigoted just because a person has been indoctrinated into believing it.
In the Old South, slaveowners could quote you chapter and verse to prove that their religion supported owning other human beings. Didn’t make it any less of a bad, bigoted idea.
Yes, it is bigotted. This is why: It is one thing to not want a gay marriage for oneself, it is quite another to not want one for someone else.
The Bible was cited in arguments against interracial marriage, as well.
The Bible is also cited in arguments against adultery.
Yep, bigoted.
Is adultery a crime where you live, or only a sin?
My point was that interracial marriage is not forbidden in the Bible and most of the opposition was not based on religious beliefs. Religion was often used to justify it by citing and creatively interpreting certain passages of the Bible, but nowhere in there are you forbidden to marry foreigners as a commandment.
homosexuality, on the other hand, is written down in there directly along with adultery as a no-no. And the vast majority of opposition to SSM today is based on sincere religious belief, not animus.
the poll seems to be going overwhelmingly towards it being bigotry, and so I’m going to concede that it is from here forward. I lost that argument in another thread anyway. But there is bigotry and there is bigotry. Most of the remaining opposition to SSM is not based on hatred.
Plenty of religious Christians are completely fine with SSM. Are we to assume their religious beliefs are not sincere? Or might there be something more to this anti-SSM position that can’t be hand waved away as “not anymus”?
Hold on a second! What does marriage have to do with sexual behaviour? I do not recall my wife and I being asked anything about our sexual practicces or preferences at any time during the application for a license or the ceremony.
Isn’t the exact same language that condemns homosexuality used to condemn eating shellfish? Yet no one is fighting to make that illegal? And doesn’t that book say something about leaving judgement of the sins of others to God? Religion as defence for this bigotry os pretty weak tea, I think.
When you enjoy the be benefits of marriage but would deny them to another, that’s bigotry. When you feel you have the right to judge others based on the supremacy of YOUR beliefs, regardless of theirs, that’s hubris.
That doesn’t matter. Not all bigotry is based on hatred. There were likely slave-owners who didn’t hate their slaves, they just treated them like livestock. In a sense, many slave-owners probably ‘loved’ their slaves in the same sense that a rancher loves his cattle.
But that was still bigotry, obviously.
You could probably argue that an opposition to performing a religious marriage ceremony on religious grounds is not bigoted (e.g. I don’t think it’s particularly bigoted if a rabbi refuses to marry two Catholics). But an opposition to civil marriages on religious grounds is clearly bigoted, IMO.
What exactly do you mean by the term “bigotry”?
I ask because I actually would define bigotry as, by definition, meaning that someone harbors a prejudiced hatred of another group, so actually in your example I would say that the slave owner was not necessarily a bigot. To be clear, I am not saying the slave owner is a good guy - I’m just saying that not everyone who is doing something wrong is a bigot.
Now, I recognize it is common in history that slavery involves enslaving people of another racial/ethnic group. I think that may not happen not merely because of racial prejudice but because it creates less cognitive dissonance when the slaves are clearly “different than us” than it would if you were to enslave your next door neighbor (that leads to uncomfortable questions about why you deserve to be free but your neighbor doesn’t when your neighbor is not so different than you). However, my understanding is that in some cases such as the ancient Greeks, at least some of their slaves were just unlucky people of the same race and nationality as their captors.
Based on that, I would say that slavery is not necessarily motivated by bigotry. That is not saying that slavery is okay because it’s not bigotry. I am just saying that it is not necessarily based on hatred. Many slave owners were probably not hateful - just selfish people that saw an opportunity to take advantage of others and took it.
So, to bring it full circle: No, I do not think that everyone who is against gay marriage is motivated by hatred. Yes, some anti-gay people do really hate gay people, but it is overly simplistic to think all of them do.
I am a Christian. I go to church, regularly. I teach Sunday school. I have been on the church board. I am currently on the committee to choose a new minister.
Christianity does not require me to reject same-sex marriage. There are many, many Christians who feel the same way.
Religious bigotry is still bigotry.
You can sit around and be turned off by gay people all day long. And you can proclaim from the rooftops that you will never, ever engage in homosexual sex.
But you don’t get to do anything that denies gays the same civil rights as you. And you don’t get to go around being hurtful - literally or figuratively - to people who are gay. That’s just all bigotry and it’s gross.
Opposition to same sex marriage is bigoted and those who hold that position are bigots. I don’t understand why something so clear cut is in question.
The Koran is often cited in support of Saudi Arabia’s treatment of women. Does the religious origin of that treatment mean that Saudi Arabia isn’t sexist?
This is the big question right here.
To me, the OP’s question is a question about the meaning of the word “bigotry,” not (just) a question about same-sex marriage or opposition to it.
Yes. Said bigotry might be based on ignorance rather than malice, but it’s still bigotry.