Okay, it’s amazing what I’ll do to procrastinate. Check, specifically, post 366.
Cell phones are cellular in nature. The phone itself is a cell in a larger network. 
Metaphors be with you.
Points noted and I’ll concede the issue. That’ll teach me to post late at night.
I’m my defense, let me add a few points that I forgot to note originally. Most arguments I’ve heard from those who oppose same sex couple getting married fall into two categories: 1) An appeal to Biblical authority with the claim that God made Adam and Eve, not Adam and Steve and 2) We’ve always done it this way, why change now?
The first category distills down to biological determinism: it’s all a matter of biology and marriage is meant only for procreation. There are too responses to this argument to list here. In other threads the Dope has gone over them many times and I’ve yet to hear a good counter-response that doesn’t essentially devolve into “we’ve always done it this way, why change now?”. When that happens, the old standby of “Homosexuality is a sin” comes out.
It’s at this point I was trying to allude to the fact that there are many serious sins (and sinners) out there, yet we don’t try to take away their right to marry who they love. I would add that the opposition opposes the change not so much because it would change (or IMHO simply expand) the definition of marriage but because it would to legitimate homosexuality, as they continue to see us as unrepentant sinners.
The second category is supported by people who seem to have latched onto the idea that marriage can only happen one way, despite the historical evidence that it has evolved in the past and the inevitability that it will evolve in the future. People in the past got married for a variety of reasons. Sometimes it was because the couple truly loved and cared for each other. From my reading of history it was more often for political or economic reasons. That you ended up loving your partner was more a matter of luck than planning. Not at all like we try to view marriage today.
I try not to throw around the term bigot freely. Yet all too often, I’ve seen people who oppose same sex couples being married being presented with these counter arguments and they still maintain their position. Given your defintion of bigotry you gave a few posts ago:
(Most of) These people fit your defintion of being bigots.
From what I’ve said above, as far as I can tell, the reasons for opposing same sex couples from getting married appears to be a deeply buried belief that such marriages legitimate homosexuality, which many people still see as sinful behavior. Likewise, some people oppose the change because they fear it would change something fundamental about society. Yet when asked what the consequences would be for this supposedly fundamental change are; their warnings are vague rambling and offer nothing concrete or verifiable. They fall into the same category as saying “what would happen if the Moon should suddenly stop orbiting the Earth and fall from its orbit?”
Very possibly. It simply does not provide a useful response to the OP.
Other than changing “sinful” to “icky,” (because, in my experience, most people who rant about the “sin” of homosexuality are much more upset about the idea of homosexuality), I would pretty much agree with this assessment. I think that most of the opposition is based on a fear that the world will be upset in some vague and undefinable way if SSM is permitted. I know otherwise intelligent people who have told me their own marriages would be lessened if Same Sex Marriage were permitted, although none have ever been able to explain just how that would happen. (Sort of one case where the “phobia” in homophobia does indicate fear rather than mere hatred.)
Nice 
You keep saying that as if it were true. Do you really not think that helping others to explore, and thereby either strengthen or discard, their beliefs and rationales/rationalizations is *not *useful? *Not *entirely in the spirit of Greatly Debating? And even when that does not occur, *not *useful in helping nonposting readers understand the issue more clearly?
You assume that they HAVE another motivation; that the bigotry ISN’T the motivation.
At some point you do have to face the lack of alternative explanations, yes. To relabel it “religious belief” does not change its substance, nor should that allow it to avoid being questioned or explored. One could slap that name on everything one thinks or feels and then there would be no debate, or ignorance-fighting, possible at all.
I really don’t see how this is supposed to work. “I’m opposed to tolerating this because I’m opposed to tolerating this”? I’m thinking not.
Now, some people clearly have an irrational visceral reaction to things, for reasons that are at best obscure (usually an ill-comprehended and unjustified fear), but that’s not quite the same as bigotry in my book.
Bigotry is an expression of a motivation; it is not a motivation of its own.
One cannot identify a bigot and automatically know that that person will hate homosexuals, other races, other sexes, and different music, It is not a stand-alone characteristic. I know people of different races who hate homosexuals. I know people of different sexes who hate people of different races.
While you appear to have this fascination for simply slapping a label on people and trying to wipe the dust of discussion off your hands, you are simply displaying a poverty of thought when you do that. You can choose to harbor that odd little belief, but you bring nothing to this discussion when you try to close this discussion by declaring your belief to be Truth.
You seem to be using a rather different definition of bigotry than I am. I’d just call those people different varieties of bigot. Just as two people can both be racist despite hating different races, two people can be bigots despite hating two different things. And I really don’t buy the idea that there has to be some sort of deep motivation behind “I hate black people” or whatever.
The other side has yet to come up with a good reason for it’s beliefs; I feel justified in calling opposition to SSM an unreasonable and destructive position because that’s what it is on the face of it, and the other side has yet to show that there’s anything deeper than that.
Making me and others dance around avoiding the “b” word doesn’t make their position any more profound or justified, or less cruel. All it does is give them a rhetorical edge by forbidding anyone to point out the obvious.
Der Trihs, I’d like an answer to this question: it seems quite possible y’all are quibbling over semantics.
Someone who has an unreasoning, baseless hatred or fear towards a group.
And my next question is “Okay, so what is the base reason for their unreasoning baseless hatred or fear?” I mean, this sort of thing doesn’t just spring from the aether - people learn this sort of thing. From parents, preachers, from the tales of the boogeyman and of monsters under the bed teaching them to fear what they don’t understand. (And in the last case, there are reasons they associate the object of their fear or hatred with the scary unknown.)
Basically if bigots are people with unreasoning, baseless hatred or fear, I don’t think there is such a thing as a bigot. People have reasons for what they do - stupid, irrational reasons sometimes, but reasons nonetheless.
(Personally I define it along the lines of ‘bigot is as bigot does’ - which allows the label to be pasted on people who act like bigots for very clear, self-aware reasons, such as the economic self-interest of slave owners or the deliberate incitement of a following by religious leaders and politicians. If you restrict bigotry to “baseless” fear and hatred, in my opinion you exclude some of the most prominent oppressors from the label.)
So to me, if you explain an action with “because they’re a bigot”, you’re just answering a question with another question (“Why are they a bigot?”) and not really explaining anything. It’s a waste of text.
Um…
I know. I’m trying to point out that in my opinion there is actually no such thing as a baseless hatred or fear. The base reason may be dumb, selfish, ill-thought, unquestioned, or directly contradicted in its premises by objective reality - but nonetheless, a base reason does exist, and it is more proper to ground the discussion there than in the uninformative stopgap label “bigot”.
You are so picked upon.
Pointing out that all two posters who have contributed to the anti-SSM position have failed to present a persuasive argument for their cause is fine when they post.
Resorting to simple name calling is not.
Why you insist that I am making you “dance” by simply enforcing the long-standing rules of this forum puzzles me. It leads me to believe that you have nothing to contribute and that you are simply mad that you are not being permitted to engage in name calling.
You get to hurl gratuitous abuse at all sort of people, day in and day out–conservatives, religious people, pretty much anyone who does not follow your particular personal worldview. In those cases, everyone can see that you are simply expressing your personal beliefs and can choose to agree or to ignore you. However, in a discussion seeking the underlying rationale for a belief, merely hurling an uninformative epithet at other posters simply poisons the well with a declaration that they are “bad.” The fact that no one has posted a persuasive argument for the anti-SSM position is sufficient without letting you turn this into a pissing contest with other posters who will (correctly) identify your name-calling as attacks on their persons.
Give it a rest.
^^This, exactly.
But the base reason given on this thread doesn’t seem to be the REAL base reason. I think what Der Trihs is trying to say is that when somebody persists with a base reason that is either dumb, selfish, ill-thought, unquestioned, etc even when the bankruptcy of the reason is demonstrated time and again, you are certainly free to speculate that the person holding that reason is simply a bigot who will not admit his bigotry.
e.g.
Why do you oppose SSM?
Because the sky is blue and that means that SSM will destroy civilization.
Now if somebody persists with that reason despite repeated demonstration from me that his base reason is idiotic, it would only be fair for me to speculate that maybe his real reason is bigoted and he simply doesn’t want to admit it. (or maybe he really is an idiot)