Are you suggesting that there is no one out there that is legitimately honestly in opposition to it because they think it’s morally wrong?
Oh, I agree with you. But Der Trihs wording contains the answer to your question: in his worldview, a bigot hates because he likes hating things. Hatred is an end unto itself. I think DT is wrong about that, of course, but you’re not going to get a better answer out of him, largely because you’re attempting to get him to view an argument from more than one side. Which is like kryptonite to Der Trihs.
I think there are plenty of people who are in opposition to Same-Sex-Marriage because they think it is morally wrong. I also think that “thinking it is morally wrong” is a bigoted position.
No. But insofar as SSMs perceived morality is not germane to the issue of the legalization of SSM, anyone who persists on opposing SSM by using the issue of morality is simply hiding a bigoted worldview, i.e. - I don’t like homosexuals marrying because they’re icky.
Let me give an example. Say for instance, I believe that marrying mixed races is immoral. Let’s further agree that there is no good reason in prohibiting mixed marriage. Let’s further agree that I have been shown time and again that my belief that mixed marriages are immoral is not germane to the discussion. Now, if I insist on objecting to mixed marriages on account that it’s immoral, do you really think that it’s about morality?
However, “being shown time and again” is hardly the same as being persuaded. People on the Left have “been shown time and again” that Affirmative Action is racist crapola, yet many continue to believe that it is a necessary corrective action for current social conditions. People on the Right have “been shown time and again” that a woman’s need to control her own body trumps any desire to compel her to refrain from getting an abortion, yet many continue to believe that the life inside her body has an absolute right to come to term without outside interference.
Even if every single person who has ever displayed the slightest resistance to granting SSM is, in fact, a bigot–a silly proposition, itself–simply calling them names does not address either their beliefs or the larger question of how society should proceed on the question. Name-calling is nothing more than self-satisfied hubris.
But labeling is fun and easy and lazy. How dare you demand we work up a sweat.
But this is not at all analogous. Whether or not people on the left agree that AA is racist crapola, they still have a reaonable belief left that it’s a necessary corrective action for current social conditions. Whether or not people on the right agree about privacy rights, they are still left with a reasonable argument about the life of the unborn.
With opposition to SSM, we have no such thing. I’ve yet to hear a reasonable argument presented against SSM. With your examples, there is room for disagreement. With SSM, I really can’t see it.
Many people, I would imagine, would be unfamiliar with all the arguments as to render their opinions about SSM uninformed - so I won’t say that everyone or even a majority are bigoted. But to those that are able to digest a substantial amount of the arguments, come on! To speculate that bigotry is at the root of the opposition when no rational arguments are presented is certainly warranted. (Though I would never call anyone a bigot myself).
And what might it be, pray tell?:dubious:
Whereas I would speculate that his stated base reason is idiotic, but that he has some other underlying real base reason that seems, to him, less idiotic, but much more likely to be lambasted and/or ridiculed by the audience. “Because I think gays are icky” is pretty piss-poor argumentive backing for a position, and certain to elicit accusations of bigotry, but it can be a strongly held and deeply compelling reason to the person holding it - enough to make them defend other even flimisier arguments with the vehemence instilled by their feeling for their real reason.
I will also take this moment to note that many people probably don’t really understand and internalize the real reason they do things. I strongly suspect that many of the people who vehemently insist that they’re acting to defend a moral code of society are secretly feuled by fear and xenophobia - but are loath to admit it even to themselves, and so have convinced themself that defending morality really is their single strongly-held underlying goal.
So what if it is? “Bigoted” is a description, not an impetus; if one is cavalier enough one can describe any position that differentiates between two things as bigoted based on effects alone. But the mere fact that a position is bigoted estabilishes nothing about its causes or potential counterarguments - any more than labeling a car “red” tells you about the functioning and repair of its engine.
It’s actually worse than this; there seems to be a trend around here for labeling a position as bigoted and stopping there. Doing this is nothing more than an abdication of debate; you are declaring your opposition is irrational to spare yourself the responsibility of trying to uncover and convince them of the errors in their thinking. And, when they react angrily to your insult, you can then pat yourself on the back for having correctly labeled them unfit to debate with.
Now, this is a fine, noble, and completely correct approach to debate - in the Pit. Here, in Great Debates, it’s nothing more than hiding behind your declaration of the rightness of your position.
I think it means that you have failed to be convinced that that your belief that mixed marriages are immoral is not germane to the discussion. Presumably there’s a reason for this - could be anything from an internal belief that democracy is a crock and that we should all be subjects of a theocratic dictatorship, to merely being so pissed at being called a bigot repeatedly that you refuse to consider anything the opposition has said. But being called a bigot further isn’t going to do squat to change your views on the matter.
See my prior post for a few possible examples.
I am drawing a distinction between a religious opinion which is based off of a philosophy and a visceral revulsion.
Honestly what you think about the justification of religious reasoning is completely irrelevant. I know it’s very important TO YOU but it’s not important to the topic.
Yeah the only appropriate response that one is. :rolleyes:
Maybe a person who is convinced that his/her interpretation of Christianity is correct feels no visceral revulsion to homosexuals at all.
Those are paraphrases, not explanations.
The problem here is that your basis for judging what is reasonable is whether or not you agree with it. I too can take the position that nothing that I disagree with is reasonable. That’s the intellectually lazy road. Whether or not it sufficiently convinces you has no bearing on the reasons provided.
Both ideals are based off of a philosophical stance, one that is more rooted in religious reasoning than anything else. Basically we just decided that certain things are of value. For the pro-SSM side the rights of the individual are paramount, not everyone in the world agrees with this, and when it was instituted it was generally considered a fairly radical proposition. Now you are arguing that anything based on it is based on reason, when in reality it’s based off of a simple philosophical choice, just as the view about Christianity. Of course we get into the whole inalienable rights crap but that’s a bunch of flowery bullshit that Thomas Jefferson made up. The reality is there is no such thing as a ‘right’ it is an intangible granted by the state, basically a ‘hard’ privilege. Rights do not exist innately, they are granted based on underlying philosophical opinion. Calling it a right rather than a privilege just makes it harder to take away once it’s been agreed that it’s a right, but its essential nature is no different from that of a privilege.
I have two responses to this:
-
Bull. “[They have] an internal belief that democracy is a crock and that we should all be subjects of a theocratic dictatorship” is a paraphrase of exactly no argument that has been presented anywhere in this thread by the anti-SSM side.
-
And you think “because they’re a bigot” is a better explanation? :dubious:
Limiting it to this thread is disingenuous. You know damn well how often the “we’re defending Christian morality” card gets played both in the real world and in other threads .
Only in that it clears away the obfuscation that rationalized paraphrases permit. We are supposed to be in *favor *of increasing understanding, are we not?
If you seriously think that’s functionally the same as “I want to overthrow the government and put the pope on the throne”, then I want some of whatever you’re smoking.
And if you are not perfectly serious, then I’d be a little more careful tossing around the “disingenuous” label, if I were you.
It clears away nothing - it just replaces their bullshit arguments with your bullshit argument, which increases understanding not a single whit. Of course the purpose of calling people bigots isn’t to clear away anything or increase understanding; it’s to let you declare yourself “winner” and pat yourself on the back for your triumphant defeat of the big bad bigot.
Some of us think that we’d rather “win” by demonstrating that the other side - or god forbid convincing them to, if not agree with us that gays are lovely people, at least to stop trying to oppress the poor folk.
But if you’d rather disrupt debate so you can declare yourself winner, have at. In the Pit.
It might be poorly presented.
You might be incapable of grasping the point.
Neither is resolved by hurling the epithet “bigot” at the opposition and declaring the discussion complete. When the hurled term is very closely aligned with the views of specific posters, then hurling the epithet becomes a matter of personal insult and is not appropriate to this forum. This is particularly true when the epithet fails to provide an explanation (aside from the beliefs of those of simplistic thoughts who simply label opponents “bad”). In fact, that was how it got ruled out of this thread: the hurling of the epithet was getting closer and closer to simply calling other posters names.
But there are plenty of very religious people in favor of SSM. Unless the person in question robotically obeys the dictates of whatever church he is in, religion is no excuse.
BTW, I don’t understand the definition of “baseless” in this discussion. If a person is scared of / hates group X because of being frightened by a member as a child, is that baseless? How about being told group X is awful by parents when very young? Being told this in church when a bit older? Would people be happier with “irrational” rather than baseless?
Revulsion can be programmed in also. I know Jews who are disgusted at the prospect of eating ham. Since I was brought up eating bacon, I don’t have that problem. Is hatred of pork products baseless or not?
Most of this addresses people who actually think there is such a thing as a baseless belief - but “Would people be happier with “irrational” rather than baseless?” I can respond to.
The question of whether I’d be happier with “irrational” is “it depends on what you’re using the term for.” If you are using the term because you believe that you have drilled down and found that the underlying basis of the person’s actions is an irrational premise, and you are hoping that by convincing them that their premise is irrational they will be convinced to abandon it because they don’t want to be irrational, then I approve of that argument style and use of the term. However, if you’re just using the term because you think the person’s a moron and you want to tell everybody that they’re a moron…that’s not so good.
Case in point: telling a jew that it’s irrational not to want to eat ham. To them, of course, it’s clearly not irrational - starting from a belief in god and his pronouncements they can draw a direct logical line to an aversion to consuming ham. So if you call their belief irrational one hopes it’s not to convince them it is - that would be dumb and doomed to failure. No; calling their beliefs irrational is aimed at yourself and the audience - you’re trying to build a basis for laughing them out of court. Thus this use of “irrational” or “baseless” would be a clear example of trying to win by shutting down argument - not cool.
Incidentally, I actually think that “bigot” can in theory be used in both ways as well; I can imagine cases where a person would be seriously swayed if you convinced them that their beliefs were leading them to act in a bigoted manner, and if you used the term with the attempt to sway them from that behavior the use of the term would be legitimate. But that’s clearly not the way the word was being used in this thread - if nothing else the fact that it didn’t work immidiately would cause a legitimate user of it to hastily back off and try a different, less volatile approach.