No, because marriage as it has existed historically has been defined as being between a man and a woman. You are seeking to change that, so it is not irrational to say, ‘Can’t you come up with a new word?’, because it’s not the same. SSM is not the same as heterosexual marriage for reasons that have been gone over. It is a false equivalency to say they are the same. Sure, I am supportive personally of allowing SSM, but what I don’t like is the intellectually dishonest dismissal of anyone who wants to maintain the culture the way it is a mere ‘bigotry’. Especially to have that same incredibly irrational person argue that they are the rational side while hurling personal attacks and name calling.
‘It’s bigotry’, isn’t an argument, it’s name calling.
In what way is any statute which prohibits marriage between two people of the same gender a violation of the Constitution’s Equal Protection clause of th 14th Amendment? In what way is it “against the law?” Do you have decisional law on your side? Some legal principle that I’m unaware of? Or are you simply making an assertion?
Or was the discussion about something other than same-gender marriage?
Personally, I don’t care if they’re bigots. Some here would call me a bigot.
What matters is that if you want to deny a person a right, like the right to be married, or the right to *call *their hedonistic sham union a “marriage”, then you have to have some kind of compelling reason to deny the right. Especially with that specter “equal protection” looming over us all. And given that, what’s actually happening here is that the anti-SSM people are basically stepping up and they are making arguments that all boil down to “you can’t let them be married because I’m a bigot.” (Not in so many words, of course.) That’s assuming the arguments don’t boil away to fallacy completely.
If the anti-SSM people could come up with a more compelling rationale than that, we’d be forced to listen and account for it. But, well…hey, as long as you’re here, what, specifically, would be the negative consequences of allowing gays to marry?
Well either you think allowing SSM will mean SS couples will move in with hetero couples or you just agreed SSM should be accepted. See, SSM is opening up the same type of club across the street but others including you seem to oppose it.
I guess you’ve changed your mind. Good for you. Welcome aboard. Feels good doesn’t it?
i believe it’s a moral thing. overall America is considered to be a christian country (in god we trust, god bless america, etc.) In the bible it says man to woman, not man to man or woman to woman. I agree with the statement “they’re gonna live together anyway so whats it hurt to let them marry”… i also think that if it was legal to let them marry we would be contradicting ourselves by forcing God into many parts of america and then going against what He says. letting them be together without letting them marry simply puts the blame on the couple, not on the U.S.
It is true, it remains true and will always be true. Both sides agree it is true, otherwise there would be no fight over it, we’d already have same sex marriage and it wouldn’t be controversial.
Huh? I did not equate SSM opponents and white supremacists (I think that’s what you’re implying). I did criticize people who spout opinions which are derived from ignorance and/or hate and who then complain when others dismiss them as bigots.
That’s not what’s going on here. There are lots of reasons that people oppose SSM. I (and many other posters here) simply find their arguments anywhere from not-compelling to ludicrous. Further, in some cases it is entirely correct to identify an the “logic” behind an argument as mere bigotry.
Simply wrong. The anti-SSM side wants to keep things the way they imagine they have been for centuries. It’s been well argued elsewhere that the “traditional” model beloved of the anti-SSM side is by no means the only model, nor the oldest, nor the most Biblically correct.
“Bigotry” most certainly has meaning, and it can be a valid explanation for why someone behaves in a particular manner.
SSM would be legal, just as abortions are legal, but opponents could easily continue to maintain that the law was wrong. A school that taught that opposition to abortion is bigotry would be out of line, but simply noting the legality of the act does not make that claim
Both sides definitely do not agree that is true. Today most people recognize marriage as a contract between a man and a woman, acknowledging their mutual love and commitment, as equal partners in their relationship. Virtually none of this has been the case historically.
Bullshit. historically it has been a man and his harem. Even Abraham had three wives.
Tell you what, in your fantasy world where marriage has historically has been defined as being between a man and a woman, you and your imagination can continue to imagine that no gays are getting married. In fact, you may pretend that no gay people even exist. But out here in the real world we’ll note that the term “marriage” demonstrably has been applied to unions containing more than one person of the same sex, and demonstrably is an inherently inclusive term that can be correctly applied to pretty much any union that we wish to apply it to.
What’s next, sticking your fingers in your ears and saying “la la la I can’t hear you!” :rolleyes:
I think anyone who tries too hard to maintain the culture as it is is in denial of reality and our own history. The same women who oppose SSM would not want to give up their right to vote. Bigotry born from cultural ignorance is still bigotry but I agree it does no good to simply repeat “they’re bigots” over and over.
No, the people bringing it up are the ones who want to use religion as a moral Get Out Of Jail Free card. It’s bigotry regardless of whether or not religion is involved, just as regarding blacks as inferior is bigotry regardless of whether or not religion was involved. If people hold a bigoted opinion due to religion, it’s still bigoted.
No, the purpose of saying “It’s just bigotry” is to point out just how baseless the other side’s position is.
So then Christian morality is ignorance and hate is what you are saying?
Not it’s not entirely ‘correct’. It’s meaningless name-calling designed to shame people into agreeing with you. It’s meant to stifle debate, not further it.
Ok then you’ve said, it prove to me that somewhere in Western Society SSM was considered perfectly legitimate anywhere in history. I’m not ‘simply wrong’, I am absolutely 100% correct. SSM was NEVER normative in our culture. Monogamous marriage between a man and a woman HAS been. Even plural marriage between a man and several women, or between a woman and several men has more of a historical precedent than SSM. So SSM is an entirely new thing, and its dishonest to act like the term marriage hasn’t up until now been about inter-gender relationships.
No, it doesn’t explain anything, it pigeonholes an opinion and substitutes for an explanation where neither the audience nor the speaker actually cares about understanding their opponents reasoning.
No. Declaring the “only” answer to be bigotry is a clear claim that everyone in this thread in opposition to you is a bigot.
And as I now see that that theme has infected the thread:
TWEEEEEEEEET!!!
The claim that opposition to SSM is and can only be bigotry is now off limits in this thread. It does not resolve the issue, it is simply a form of name calling.
Even IF bigotry is at the base of an argument, that argument still must rest on assumptions and logic and those can be discussed without charges of bigotry.
Any further claims of bigotry that are not associated with a particular non-board person accompanied by explicit evidence of bigotry will receive a Warning.
I’m not going to even pretend that it’s even a valid argument. I’m not even going to pretend that any of you actually believe it when you say it either.