Well… yeah. He ran for public office, didn’t he?
Astorian: We are not talking about 17 years ago, we are talking about 2009. Things change, and today’s people have had the past 17 years to be exposed to this issue and all the arguments, pro and con. Plus, today’s electorate contains an entire new generation that is much more accepting of SSM than their predecessors, so we old fogies can learn from their example. All things considered, it’s not unreasonable to assume that anyone who still opposes SSM, in 2009, is a bigot.
Sure. You can lose perspective when throwing out extreme analogies. What are the odds that a significant fraction of the contestants in the contest advocate slavery? If one advocates slavery, it’s pretty safe to say they were an oddball and the only one, therefore making the remaining candidates better.
But there’s nowhere near the consensus on gay marriage as there is on slavery. There could’ve easily been 20 or 30 contestants that were against gay marriage, and yet only one “deserved to lose” beacuse of it because she randomly drew the question. If the eventual winner also was against gay marriage, then how did they deserve to win? Due to the random chance of the question drawing?
The California Supreme Court? Why would that make a difference in the national public sphere?
It’s hard to think of any principled reason for this, except for mswas’s sarcastic observation that bigotry = disagreement with mainstream liberal thinking.
I’m strongly in favor of gay marriage, but I think the question and reaction were unfair.
As has been mentioned, even Obama is currently unable to come out in favor of gay marriage (if he in fact supports it). That should tell you the relative difficulty of the question.
She also comes from a state which voted against gay marriage, so she was in the position of possibly bashing her own state.
We don’t know if she actually voted against gay marriage. As a comparison, plenty of people believe abortion is wrong but still think it should be legal. If she does not try to force her religious beliefs on others, it is unfair to call her a bigot.
Finally, the term “marriage” is somewhat ambiguous in common usage. People speak of “religious marriage” and “legal marriage” in the same terms.
Possibly she believes “religious marriage” (performed by her church) is between a man and a woman, but would allow “legal marriage” (state recognized) for same sex couples. There is really nothing bigoted about that, but such an argument would be extremely awkward to make under the circumstances.
As you can probably tell, it is not a fair question in the context she was asked it.
Then Barack Obama is, in fact, a bigot and a “stupid bitch,” right?
Why isn’t Perez Hilton ripping HIM an asshole, instead of bullying beauty pageant contestants?
You don’t have to be enthusiastic. You don’t even have to care. You just can’t be opposed to it without being a bigot.
It really doesn’t matter if you’re enthusiastic at all.
Yes, he’s completely wrong on the issue. Whether it’s what he really believes or something he said for political expediency.
So he’s either a bigot or a hypocrite.
I find this uproar amazing. Everyone is being so hateful to this woman, but no one screamed bloody murder when Obama said the same thing.
Everyone?
The oposite of love isn’t hate, it’s apathy.
And I couldn’t give two shits about her.
So is this now about how consistent Perez Hilton is, or about whether or not it’s fair for someone not to win a beauty pageant because she only favors opposite marriage?
It’s not a black and white world where either people are good or bad and I regret saying over and over in this thread that people who oppose gay rights are bad. It would be much more accurate to say that it’s a very serious black mark against one’s character and that there’s no reason to oppose gay rights that isn’t fundamentally rooted in intolerance and hate.
Beauty pageants are quite short and insubstantial and in her short time this woman managed to say something intolerant and hateful. That’s a good enough reason to lose.
Obama’s opposition to gay marriage rights is a very bad thing, but he has potential to still do a lot of good for a lot of people. Even ignoring everything not having to do with gay rights, for instance, he could follow through on ending Don’t Ask Don’t Tell. That would be a good thing.
I think in 25 years people will have a hard time believing that someone who did generally good things for America would have held such a backward bigoted hateful view about depriving people their basic rights.
Yes, although he’s still a marked improvement over virtually every other candidate on the national stage.
Yeah, gay rights supporters swallowed their objections and voted for a candidate who either opposes full equality for gays, or who is willing to sell us out to sew up an election. I can understand why you find that so amazing. After all, it’s not like that’s what we’ve had to do for every single presidential election in the last fifty years. I can totally see how this reaction would have blindsided you in 2008, what with the utter lack of precedent, and all.
Hmm. I’d have to go with “bigotry = believing that a group of people should be discriminated against under the law for something over which they have no control, and which causes no harm to anyone.” At least, as a starting point. I’m sure it could be refined further. But yeah, under that definition, opposing gay marriage makes you a bigot. And ten years ago, when no nation in the world recognized gay marriage, it also made you a bigot. You just had more company in your views, is all.
That’s quite different from the dictionary definition. But anyway, I’m a little confused by your definition. Certainly homosexuals, generally speaking, have control over their desires in that they can choose not to act upon them. On the other hand, pretty much nobody has control over the acutal sexual desires they feel.
So what exactly are you referring to when you (apparently) say that homosexuals have no control over their homosexuality?
Further, I’m not sure what you mean by “harm.” Do you believe that polygamous marriages cause harm, assuming that the participants are willing and able to consent?
I mean that homosexuals can’t stop being homosexuals. But of course, you knew very well what I was saying.
I’m not particularly interested in debating polygamy.
No, I don’t know what you were saying. If you define homosexuals by their actions, then of course they can stop being homosexuals. If you define homosexuals by their desires, then yes they cannot stop, but neither can polygamists (if defined by their desires).
Why would you be? It shows that your definition of “bigot” is rather silly.
What? Which one is it? Do gays have control over their desires or does pretty much nobody have control over their desires?
Reread his sentence; his meaning was obvious.