False. That is NOT a rational argument, it is rationalization. It is not based on reasoning or fact, but on a particular concept of “morality”, as you say yourself in the very same fucking sentence.
Apparently you don’t know the difference after all.
We are still without any example at all of an actual societal harm.
Then what, to you, is bigotry? What is the difference? Putting the label of morality or religion on bigotry does not clean it up.
Reasoning requires a factual base. The conclusion you describe is no more “logical” than one based on assuming the moon to be made of cheese. Come on now.
And that isn’t “bigotry” either, is it, huh?
What is under discussion here is the law. The Constitution. The rights it guarantees, among which is equal protection of the laws. It is not about comparative moralities, and it is at best disingenuous to try to make that claim.
One would have thought someone with “Esq” in his screen name was a lawyer who would understand and respect that, but given that you’re actually just a geometry teacher, perhaps not.
Don’t bother making it personal, he thrives on it. I gather that, like mswas, he’s claiming no personal opinion against gay marriage (or at least leaving the door open to such a claim) but rather that he’s only playing devil’s advocate and if you get angry, it’s because your own position is weak.
I just wish he and mswas (or anyone, really) could come up with something other than vapid repetition and describe some tangible negative effect that could be analyzed.
I wasn’t making it personal. I was making the point that “we love the sinner but hate the sin” comes across as dishonest in general to me. It’s the sort of thing I always hear from people who make it clear by their actions that yes, they do “hate the sinner” regardless of what they claim.
If you know of any other way to address someone’s personal prejudices, and the rationalizations thereof, that does not make it look personal, I’d like to know about it.
Well, it doesn’t work for me. Women who undergo abortions as well as fathers who support women who undergo abortions as well as people who fund abortions and doctors who perform abortions and treat pregnancies that do not reach term does not appear to be a distinct class to me.
Further, murderers and jaywalkers are not distinct classes either. They are people who come from a variety of classes that perform a particular act. Yes, they are a group of people who have one thing in common, but saying that they are a distinct class is like saying people who eat fast food are a distinct class or people who sing. And how are murderers discriminated against? They are punished and restricted based on an act that is inherently anti-social. Are you suggesting that homosexuals should be punished and restricted in the same manner?
Are you further suggesting that homosexuals *choose *to be homosexual? Do blacks *choose *to be black? Do women *choose *to be women? Do the disabled *choose *to be disabled? It seems to me that by aligning homosexuals with individuals who choose abortion, murder, and crossing the street illegally, you are indicating that they also have a choice in their sexual orientation.
But a person can believe with all of their heart that it is immoral to engage in homosexual acts. That does not mean that they hate homosexuals, or that they are merely, ‘squicked out’. The irrational hatred of homosexuality is not rooted in a personal revulsion to homosexuals, but in an adherence to what they think is God’s law. That’s the problem here with the label bigot, it just doesn’t propel the discourse any further. It also opens the door to saying that any disapproval of anything on religious grounds is mere bigotry, which opens the door to a whole slew of anti-religious bigotry. It basically says that Christians (or any religious person) who believe a certain way, are bigots just by the very nature of their bigotted religion. I know some people on this message board are just fine with that line of reasoning, it makes me personally quite uncomfortable. I am certain that the overwhelming majority of those who oppose gay marriage are inspired by at least a modicum of bigotry, but it just doesn’t serve any useful purpose to pigeonhole it that way, and it’s a form of bigotry in and of itself to just declare Christian belief bigotry.
What about opposition to prostitution on religious grounds. Is that a form of bigotry? Personally I think prostitution should be legal (for real I’m not playing Devil’s Advocate) and that the only reasons to oppose prostitution are religious reasons, and yet it’s illegal everywhere. Registered prostitutes who could call the cops would have legal protection so it would be better for them. The state could shut down the dirty and diseased ones like we do with unclean restaurants, so it would be better for the Johns. It would put it all behind closed doors and everyone would know where to look if they wanted to go see a prostitute. So is it merely bigotry that keeps Prostitution illegal?
Hey, good for them. It’s only when they put that belief into practice and vote for Prop 8 or something similar that they go from being passively irrational to actively irrational, and thus have the potential to do evil.
And still be rationalizing. One isn’t necessarily even conscious of the process.
What other way do you suggest is possible to get someone to reconsider if a position really is “God’s law” after all? It is their refusal to consider the possibility of being wrong which prevents the discourse from being propelled further, not the persons attempting to get them to do so.
“Any”? Please. You know about the slippery slope fallacy, or at least should.
There is no reason for you to spew such fabrications. It only hurts your credibility.
It serves far less of a purpose to let them get away with having their bigotry be controlling in society, doesn’t it?
It would be, if it ever happened. Please. :rolleyes:
Prostitution is a matter of choice. Sexual orientation is not. Gays cannot choose not be gay any more than straights can choose not be straight. That’s the heart of what makes a distinction bigotry or not.
Or are you under the common illusion that sexuality is a “lifestyle choice”?
Yes, and some people could just be projecting their own irrational notions upon their opponents.
“Agree with me or I tell everyone you’re a bigot.”, isn’t exactly trying to propel the discourse further.
Yes, I know that people call it a fallacy often when it is not.
:rolleyes:
:rolleyes:
:rolleyes: Are you trying to honestly say this doesn’t happen around here? Like seriously, with a straight face and everything?
So? It’s ok to stop someone from making a free choice based on religious belief?
As I have said before, physiological compulsion is irrelevant to legislating ethical behavior. If so we’d have to allow all sorts of actions caused by brain disorders like psychosis, schizophrenia, pedophilia, etc…
No, it’s the poetic license position. I guess I could spelled out in 5000 words or more how gay couples that have been together for years can’t adopt, or how when one suffers a health crisis the other won’t be consulted for treatment, or how they can’t buy a house or sign a lease together with the same degree of protection hetero couples get automatically, or any number of things, but “evil” makes for effective shorthand.
Can’t a person commit evil while believing he is doing good? Hitler (OMGodwin!) thought he was the good guy you know?
I’m sure many slave owners thought that they were helping to *civilize *blacks. Will you concede that someone can do very very evil things if they believe they are doing the right thing?
Preventing people who love each other from marrying because they believe that god doesn’t want that, for instance?