**QFT… **This is as true today as it has been the last eight years. I did not vote for President Obama. He is, however, my president, with all the due respect, hope, and expectations that goes with it.
Indeed. I voted against Bush both times but do not revile him. I’d have to go back to Nixon to think of a president I did revile, but even then, he was my president, even though I hope he’s burning in hell where he belongs.
There is tons of evidence, pay attention. It starts with the removal of voters in Florida before the election in 2000 and goes on and on from there. The data is all out there.
What about atheists? Can I hate them and not be a bigot? I’ve never heard any atheist claim their lack of faith was irrational. Quite the contrary, actually.
For better or worse, there are moral and ethical standards in this country that are based on nothing more than what the majority find objectionable morally (e.g., public sex, blue laws, walking around naked).
My friend isn’t against gays. Failing to want the state to recognize the union is a far cry from him condemning the entire lifestyle. Calling him a bigot is on par with calling people bigots who don’t want swearing on broadcast TV.
So I guess the question comes back to WHY doesn’t he want to recognize the unions. And again, the answer is because traditionally that is not part of the moral code of the founding of this nation. It isn’t because gays are teh evil!!!111.
To me, his argument isn’t based on bigotry (a hatred of gays), but rather on (his views of) the traditions and cultures of the country. Your and my view are very different, to be sure. But that doesn’t make his view bigoted unless you care to define bigotry in such a way as to make it almost useless.
It absolutely is bigotry.
Let’s rephrase it a little. If it were to ban marriages between races would it be bigoted? What if civil unions were okay but marriage was not? Looks a lot like bigotry right there. How is this any different?
Well, my lack of faith was not a rational choice. It’s simply how I am.
So let’s see what happens if I substitute race into other laws and see if they become based on bigotry:
If I were to ban <insert race here> from being in certain buildings would that be bigotry? Yes? Well, okay then, it must be bigotry to ban smoking in certain buildings.
If I were to ban <insert race here> from appearing in public, would that be bigotry? Yes? Well then it must be bigotry to outlaw public drunkeness.
This may very well be bigotry, but using the <insert race here> technique isn’t the test for that. You can’t just substitute race or religion or any other group into the situation and then call it bigotry.
Playing “what if” doesn’t work either. You’re using a hypothetical that doesn’t exist. What if unicorns were real and told us gay marriage is okay?
Everyone (I’ve seen) defending gay marriage feels quite firmly that any argument against it must be irrational and/or bigoted simply because they don’t see anything wrong with it. Of course arguments against gay marriage look irrational if you think it is rational. But that doesn’t make it so. You have to stop and take a long hard look at the other side and realize the argument against gay marriage is much more similar to the argument in favor of keeping public indecency out of our lives than it is to keeping <insert race here> suppressed.
You’re picking out actions instead of identities. Your examples are not good.
My atheistic view wasn’t something I just woke up with one day. In looking at the world and what I had been told of God and the universe, what I myself had reasoned and an utter lack of any “feelings” of God in my life, I came to the conclusion God does not exist.
Perhaps it is observation bias, but I seem to recall similar experiences of other atheists. To wit, most atheists never really felt the presence of God, saw no evidence for His existence and concluded (reasoned) God just doesn’t exist.
I withdraw the comment about atheists having rationally come their position. I obviously can’t speak for all of them. But I still hold that atheists do not view their position as being irrational.
You missed my point.
You can’t just put <race> into any argument and if it comes up bigoted the original argument is bigoted. You can make almost anything bigoted that way.
How about this:
<insert race> are not allowed to enter a public men’s restroom.
So are laws outlawing women in men’s restrooms bigoted?
What’s the point, you know they’ll still do it anyways if the lines are too big. :rolleyes:
Showing that some laws acceptably discriminate doesn’t legitimize all others. All laws discriminate in the sense of treating different classes of people differently. All of them. Every single one. Laws against murder discriminate against people who kill people. Laws against speeding discriminate people who drive fast. The test isn’t whether a law is discriminatory, but whther it is unneccessarily or impermissably discriminatory based on the class of person being regulated and the importance and legitimacy of the objective the law is trying to achieve. The people in your examples, smokers and drunks, aren’t in any kind of protected class at all. You have no legally cognizable right to smoke or be drunk anywhere you want, and your status as “smoker” or “drunk” doesn’t meet the crtiteria we generally use for what we call a “suspect classification:” it’s not an immutable characteristic, members of that group are not a discrete and insular minority subject to historical discrimination, and so on. If you discriminate against smokers, drunks, and people who curse on television, the law you make doing so only has to be a rational means of meeting a legitimate end. That’s just “garden variety” discrimination. If you discriminate against a suspect classification, your reasons for doing so have to be much, much better.
Even if you don’t fully accept that gays should be a suspect classification like race or national origin, the comparison of same sex marriage and marriage between races is far closer than to laws regulating smokers, drunks, and people who curse on television. Marriage between races were not part of the traditional moral code our country was founded on, either; the standard of the time was much closer to “slavery between races.” The argument that “it’s not traditional” and “it isn’t optimal for children” didn’t save miscegenation laws.
That was my point, too. <insert race here> is not a legitimate test for bigotry. Unless, of course, you want to define bigotry very broadly.
And again, just because some ideas have been shown to bad, doesn’t mean all of them are.
My point with using drunks as an example was simply to say that we have laws that exist for the main purpose of regulating morality. Therefore it is perfectly reasonable that if you find homosexual marriage immoral, it wouldn’t be unheard of to ban it.
I think this bears repeating: where you are depends highly on where you start. If you believe homosexuality is a suspect classification then of course you’ll realize gay marriage should be legalized. If you don’t start with that concept but instead start with the concept that traditionally it goes against the culture of this country, then you’ll conclude gay marriage should not be legalized. It then comes down to whether or not you think homosexuality should be a protected class. Many don’t. Is that bigotry? shrug I can see why many would call it that, but I can equally see why others would not.
On what basis do we determine that any discrimination is acceptable? I know my answer to this one: (mostly) based on whether or not it violates the rights of another, which is why I have nothing against gay marriage. Others, however, view it as acceptable if what is being outlawed violates some sort of inherent moral code. Whose moral code, you may ask? Apparently that of our founding fathers. Not my argument, but still an argument.
Showing that some laws were illegitimate doesn’t illegitimize (is that a word??) all others.
I have no problem if you’ve voted for McCain. But to say “He’s not my president” is as wrong-headed and ignorant of a statement as you can make. You live here, you voted, he’s your president, like it or not.
And as a fellow Arizonan, let me make it a double “Fuck you” for voting yes on 102.
As I recall, it was Oliver North who said of Clinton - “He’s not my Commander in Chief” - and that was literally true, because North was not in the military, and so had no “Commander in Chief” (the President is the Commander in Chief of the Armed Forces, not the Commander in Chief of a civilian). North’s comment was taken out of context almost immediately and quickly morphed into the “Not my president” meme, which has spread all over the place on all sides of the political spectrum.
I agree it’s stupid to say “He’s not my president” (unless you’re a libertarian who doesn’t consider any president to be “your” president), and it’s probably needlessly nitpicky to say “He’s not my commander-in-chief”, but at least the latter makes some sense, although it’s very likely to be misinterpreted.
Hmm. Google ads are selling Cafe Press “Obama is Not My President” products.
Only John Daly and Chuck Norris can say “he’s not my President”, the rest of us, we’re stuck with him, whether we voted or not.
John Daly and Chuck Norris do not vote.
I’d pay good money to see that.