Many on this board love to call opponents of same-sex marriage “bigots.” Let’s have a look at the definition of a bigot (courtesy of Merriam-Webster):
A person who is obstinately or intolerantly devoted to his or her own opinions and prejudices; especially : one who regards or treats the members of a group (as a racial or ethnic group) with hatred and intolerance.
If you’re fully devoted to your belief that SSM should be legal, and you call opponents of SSM bigots, aren’t you then a bigot as well for your lack of tolerance to their opinion?
What I’m looking for is NOT the typical response: “No, because opposing SSM is wrong, and therefore I need not entertain notions of tolerating their view.” Nothing in the definition cited indicates the relativism of a value judgement, simply an intolerance towards the group with an opposing viewpoint.
In other words, one cannot claim the moral high ground while calling the opposition bigots. This by definition makes him or her a bigot as well.
I disagree. I believe there’s no moral imperative to be tolerant of intolerance. If a thing has an ugly description, calling it by its name isn’t prejudiced - it’s simply accurate.
The difference is that I support their right to have that view. What I don’t support is them putting their view into law which causes my family active harm.
Calling a bigot a bigot does not meet the definition of “hatred and intolerance.” Passing laws denying bigots the right to marry each other would. I’m not aware of any such movement.
Disagree. This would render the word empty and meaningless. It’s as if you said that killing was always wrong: it leaves out self-defense. It’s as if you said that war was always wrong: it leaves out a defensive war.
“Calling anything ‘evil’ is evil.” Okay, that certainly short-cuts the conversation.
Bigotry against conventional classes of persons is really rotten behavior, and needs not to be tolerated. Artificially constructed classes of persons – “Bigots” being high on that list – don’t enjoy the same fundamental protection.
Is it “bigoted” to refuse to allow people to come into my coffee house – who shit on the floor? Gosh, what a bigot I am to deny equal rights to floor-shitters. Only a bigot would turn a floor-shitter out.
Agreed. Bigotry is like crime or poverty or disease. It’s not something we have to accept as a legitimate alternative. It’s a wrong that should be eliminated.
Legitimate alternatives are things like race, religion, nationality, gender, and sexual orientation. These are characteristics in which people should tolerate those which are different from their own.
The argument “If you oppose bigotry, why then you’re as bigoted as the bigots” doesn’t get any less stupid no matter how many times it’s repeated.
But since we’re here, I will point out that your intolerance of my intolerance of homophobe’s intolerance is just as much intolerance as my intolerance of homophobe’s intolerance.
It is possible to be in favor of SSM but not hate those whose opinions are different from yours. That, I think, is what the OP is trying to say. To label those whose opinions are different from yours bigots because your opinions are morally right just feeds the hatred; the same hatred that makes Muslims hate Jews. After all, the Muslim religion is much morally right than the Jewish religion (or, is that the other way around?).
It’s funny how you think many on this board love to call people bigots but you can’t quite notice that many on this board have had this stupid conversation before. So, it makes me wonder just how much attention you are paying.
(going to the trouble to run down the post you were not willing to link to)
Well, the problem here is the “unfairly” makes an appeal to morals, doesn’t it? Are you saying that if your hatred is because you believe the other guy is being “unfair”, it’s OK?
Hatred is hatred, period. Saying your morals excuses you so it is not “bigotry” just justifies your hatred. It’s a double-edged sword. If you want people to be tolerant of your ideas that goes against their morals, you need to learn to be tolerant of their beliefs that go against yours.
And, no, not everyone who doesn’t think like you do hates you.
Sure. That’s why I said we should hate bigotry and crime rather than saying we should hate bigots and criminals. (I think most people would agree we can hate poverty and disease without hating poor people and sick people.)
In addition to being better ethically, this shift in perspective opens up new tactics. By focusing on the problem rather than the person you create the possibility of enlisting the person in eliminating the problem.
Closer to fractal, as it is “self resembling.” If anyone who hates an intolerant person is intolerant…then anyone who hates anyone who hates anyone who hates intolerant people is also intolerant…
As RayGun99 says, it’s turtles.
Self-exclusion paradoxes are closer to Moebius Strip definitions, such as the classic, “‘All Cretans are liars,’ said the man from Crete.” It forces you to turn the strip over…and over again…and over again…
I just looked up “bigot” in Merriam-Webster online, and the part you didn’t quote says that a bigot is “a person who strongly and unfairly dislikes other people, ideas, etc.” (Emphasis mine.)
I don’t think disliking people with a particular opinion counts as bigotry. Opinions are freely chosen; they are not an aspect of a person’s identity. As such, it’s totally fair game to judge people for them.