LOL!!! The mental gymnastics and contradictions it takes to try and maintain some made up nonsense never cease to amuse and bewilder me.
magellan01, are you going to explain the point of your creationism analogy or aren’t you?
That’s pretty cool. Either I am ignorant of the historical literary source, or you made it up, and are quite a poet!
It’s from Dune, the Litany against Fear.
To the OP:
There are myriad cultural and religious taboos against same-sex marriage that will take time to overcome. Once we reduce the opposition to hate filled bigots, debate ceases to have meaning. So my advice to you would be to ignore anyone on either side who succumbs to irrationality. Not all people opposed to political Zionism are anti-Semites. Not all people opposed to same-sex marriage are homophobes.
To those who meet the criteria I outlined above I would offer some advice. The issue of same-sex marriage, and it’s social acceptance, is a battle for hearts and minds. Most Americans have some measure of belief in God, and the majority identify with a specific religion. Further, the numbers are about evenly split on the issue of same-sex marriage rights with a significant portion of the populace in the undecided category. Vitriol, in particular the denigration of religious beliefs, will not win support for your cause, and may even lead to more Chick’fil’A appreciation days.
For the record, I identify myself as a libertarian. I support same-sex marriage. I also support freedom of speech for all people, including the right to provide support, financial or otherwise, to any lawful cause.
Thing is, fifty years ago there were myriad cultural and religious taboos against interracial marriages. Would it be unfair to declare such opposition to be bigotry? If so, what CAN we call “bigotry”?
We must be very careful that we do not judge history through the prism of hindsight. In fact the argument could be made that current acceptance of interracial marriage is proof that society as a whole is quite tolerant and fair.
darrakk, just so I understand what you are saying, do you want participants in the debate to recognize that being wrong and mistaken does not automatically mean the person opposing same sex marriage is a bigot?
Yes, they are; or catering to the homophobes. There simply isn’t any other reason to hold that position.
It turns out the Bible is less baggage-filled than the churches.
The Old Testament has some anti-gay stuff, right next to where it says how much you should pay for a slave, that you should burn witches, not to eat sheelfish, and that women mustn’t cook for men during their periods. Stuff we all really live by, and that you’ll hear shouted from the pulpit every Sunday.
The New Testament is nearly mute on the subject, other than a few cases of including Sodomy in lists of sins.
What’s the point of using the word “hateful” if we don’t mean to imply that the emotion of hate is involved? In any case, this is merely a semantic argument. Let’s agree what “hateful” means and move on, or pick a new word.
IMHO the OP meant “hearts filled with hate”. Some people disagree with gay marriage without hearts full of hate.
IMHO, they’re bigoted. Actually, I believe we are ALL bigots, and we either realize that and try NOT to be bigots, or else we’re just ignorant of our bigotry.
But they may not feel like bigots; they may feel like they’re following God’s word. (I disagree with them, but that’s beside the point.)
In the end, I don’t think it helps anything to label everyone opposed to gay marriage a bigot, or hateful. Alienating your political oponents is not a good way to soften their attitudes. Admittedly, many never will be softened anyway. But what’s the benefit of labeling them bigots?
In the long run, gay marriage will be legalized. There’s a huge age bias; younger people who have grown up with gays not being anathematized don’t have the problems with gay marriage that their elders have. (My son had high school friends who were gay. I thought it was great: when I was in high school, anyone who was gay was busy denying it to themselves and others. Far better to recognize the facts and figure out how to deal with them, than live in denial!)
And those old folks see this happening, which is why they’re digging in their feet and making it harder for the next generation to change things. Fortunately, they’re just delaying the inevitable.
Good point!
Nor is there a good theological explanation. (Kudos to you for your whole post, btw.)
Well, they sure seem different to me (not that it really matters for this debate).
I fear falling of cliffs. I don’t hate the cliff, or even falling. In fact, I go out of my way to jump off cliffs, for the fun of it.
Hate feels very different from fear. No doubt fear is inextricably mingled with hate, as is anger. When I feel hate, I feel anger as well! But, I have no anger for the cliff, or for falling.
Let’s try to use words to communicate, which means using them the way most people use them, unless there’s something terribly misleading about the common usage of a word. But there’s a clear distinction between fear and hate. If you don’t feel it, then perhaps you have an emotional blindness, like the color-blind person who sees no difference between red and green.
I’m okay with that, how about the rest of you?
This is not a topic about which reasonable people should disagree.
Then you’d best hope your numbers are larger than the oppositions… Because the last time I checked, states were going out of their way to pass constitutional amendments banning same-sex marriage, even in liberal bastions such as California. Based on the composition of the Supreme Court, you are unlikely to find too many friends there either.
So speaking from a strictly strategic point of view, saying “Anyone who disagrees with me is a hate filled bigot” might not be the most intelligent way of pressing the point.
I think throwing around terms like hate, and wrong, and bigot, are non-starters. I think education is the key to acceptance, and if you start the conversation with “Hey, I know you have nothing but bile in your mouth, and hate in your heart, but if you’ll just listen…” you aren’t likely to make any headway.
Over 50% of the American public disagree with same-sex marriage, if polling numbers are to be believed. Now either A) the majority of Americans are just bad people, or B) there is some misunderstanding that needs to be corrected. Tradition is a powerful impetus all its own. You can’t just disregard it as meaningless. Not if you want to have any kind of intelligent discussion.
Just to make the point (if it weren’t obvious) there ARE bigots who simply hate anyone who is different then themselves. These people are largely a lost cause. These are the people who still think segregation is a good idea. But I refuse to believe that over 50% of the US fits this demographic. And if they do, move to Canada already, because you’re righting a lost cause.
And I would ask why you bothered to post that? If you are correct, it’s impossible for you to change anyone’s mind, because by your own admission, the only motivation for those who disagree with you is hate. If you are incorrect, they you are perpetuating misrepresentations that are harmful to the cause.
In other words, you are making a politically null statement.
Years ago I had a political science professor who said that it is human nature to turn every conflict into good versus evil, us versus them. He said we have to resist that temptation, because as soon as we give into it, we’ve already lost.
The second sentence I’m going to ignore, because it’s an irrelevant nonstarter. (If you want to make that argument and show how it’s relevant, go ahead, but don’t tell me what arguments “could be made.”)
The first sentence raises two questions:
- Why must be be careful not to judge history through the prism of hindsight? If the point of judging history isn’t to help us guide our future actions, what’s the point of doing so? We should absolutely judge history according to our best understanding of ethics, justice, etc., because that’s the only point of judging history in the first place. (I’ll make an exception for you if you’re building a time machine and going back in time to hold trials, but no exception otherwise).
- Even if I grant you that we must judge history without the benefit of hindsight, how is this relevant? Fifty years ago, there were plenty of people who recognized the rank bigotry of opposing interracial marriage, cites available if you really need them. Today there are plenty of people who recognize the rank bigotry of opposing same-sex marriage.
Is there a relevant difference between the two dynamics? If so, what is it? If not, that brings us back to my first question, namely, why shouldn’t we call anti-interracial people and anti-same-sex-people bigots?
If it’s because the charge is inaccurate, you’ll need to make that case.
If it’s because it’s poor strategy, I disagree. If we can make the charge of bigotry stick–and I strongly believe we can–then we marginalize the bigots, making their opinions increasingly leave the mainstream. Sure, the bigots are currently at a majority (I think), but the drop in opposition to SSM has been astonishingly fast. The bigots are losing, and the faster that position is marginalized, the better, the more people will leave the position. It’s similar to what happened with opposition to interracial marriage: fifty years ago, it was an acceptable position, but we’ve made it no longer acceptable, and today very few people hold that position.
Because by imposing our own morals on the people of the past we entirely miss the point of history. If we are to avoid repeating history, we have to understand not simply WHAT happened, but WHY it happened. The only way to do that is to try, as best as we can, to see things through the eyes of the people who lived it. There was a time scientific thought was very different than it is today. Should we then hold people accountable for all the “stupid” things they did 1000 years ago, simply because they weren’t “smart” enough to figure out quantum mechanics? How can we understand history if we apply the rules of the present to the past? We can’t.
Your error is positing a frame of reference 50 years ago, during the civil rights movement. This did not exist in a vacuum. All these people who say the bigotry of opposition to same sex marriage had the benefit of great thinkers like Martin Luther King. And it didn’t go one way. Malcolm X was a great opponent to same sex marriage, and a large proponent of segregation. I am sure you are familiar with the man, and the multitude of his followers.
Because a bigot is not open to change. If you look at the statistics, more and more people are embracing same sex marriage. By definition, these people are not bigots. As well, I think you underestimate the psychological need for tradition and structure. These are very real things, and I think you are too quick to dismiss them.
And it took 50 years. And it happened one family at a time. And I am betting the number of interracial couples who walked up to their parents and said “You are hate filled bigots” are in the minority. We need to get to know each other. It is a lot harder to “hate” someone you know on a personal level. If we keep the dialogue open, if we approach this not as a war, but as a discussion, eventually things will improve. It won’t happen over night. Social change never does. But it will happen. Attacking people who disagree with you simply strengthens the base.
Case in point: I am pro gay marriage, but I supported the Chick-Fil-A appreciation day. When public officials in their official capacity threaten punitive action in response to a persons free speech, that crosses a line. I know a whole lot of people who supported Chick-Fil-A for the same reason. Not because they were anti-gay, but because they were pro free speech.
Sure, but nothing about judging the actions of historical people prevents understanding why it happened. I can understand why Andrew Jackson murdered a bunch of Cherokee in defiance of the Supreme Court, and I can simultaneously think he was a racist asshole. There’s no difficulty in holding both positions.
Huh. According to Malcolm X,
Granted, he changed his mind, but I don’t think he’s a great support for your position.
In any case, it was a bigoted position, as he goes on to elaborate at that link (he blames society for it).
This is a narrow and inappropriate understanding of the definition of “bigot,” a position that makes it impossible to call anyone “bigot” until they’re dead (and, presumably, under the protection of history). Rather, a bigot is someone 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. Someone who holds intolerant opinions and prejudices about gay folks exactly matches the definition. It’s perfectly appropriate to call such a person a bigot.
Edit: incidentally, if you seriously prioritize flipping the bird at public officials who blow smoke (i.e., Chik-Fil-A appreciation day) over not giving money to hate groups (i.e., boycotting Chik-Fil-A), you maybe should check your priorities.