“Disagreeing with me” is merely incidental due to where I stand. “Anyone who wants to deny civil rights to other human beings is a hate-filled bigot” is a closer approximation of my stance.
I think it’s a complete crock that we should even be voting on rights.
Totally irrelevant. Engaging in bigotry because someone tells you to is still bigotry, and “I was just following orders” is not an excuse.
That’s not an argument them not being bigots, that’s an argument for lying about it in the name of political expediency. Whether it’s a good idea to call them bigots and whether or not they actually are bigots are two separate questions. I prefer honesty myself. But they are still bigots regardless of the effectiveness of calling them that as a political tactic.
Because I enjoy arguing on message boards. I don’t expect to convince these bigots; I expect them to die of old age or to be embarrassed into silence as their views become marginalized. And frankly, I think that pointing out their bigotry and comparing them to other bigots throughout history in much more likely to be effective than trying to use reason and compassion with people whose bigotry is based on the rejection of both of those things. “Polite” people who bend over backwards to pretend their opponents are decent rational people seldom accomplish anything, especially when those opponents aren’t those things.
Certainly, when judging the behavior or beliefs of a historic figure, the standards of his time and place should be taken into account. Abraham Lincoln was, by modern standards, horribly racist. By 19th century standards, he was very progressive. We can recognize that he made great strides in moving beyond the prejudice of his society, without having to redefine the word “bigot” to exclude him.
If we look back at a bronze age sheepherder, cowering from the thunder because he thinks it means the gods are angry, we shouldn’t scorn him for not understanding atmospheric phenomena, but we also shouldn’t pretend that he really was hearing pissed off deities. We know better than that now, just as we know more about racial equality than Lincoln did.
Says who?
Well, no, once they stop being bigoted, they are, indeed, no longer bigots. And America as a whole is becoming much less bigoted towards homosexuals. In fact, the rate of change on this issue is astonishing. There are people living today who have gone from living under the threat of arrest and incarceration (either in a prison, or a mental hospital) simply for being gay, to being able to get a state-sanctioned same-sex marriage.
Actually, it took something more on the order of three centuries. And involved an actual, shooting-and-killing-each-other war. Gay rights, on the other hand, has gone from zero to near-victory in a little over fifty years. And we did it using exactly the tactics you’re insisting are counter-productive: we insisted that disparate treatment of homosexuals is a form of bigotry, no different or less pernicious than racial or religious bigotry. Given the unprecedented speed of acceptance of gay rights in Western society, on what do you base your assumptions that this tactic counterproductive? What exactly is your experience in civil rights, anyway? Oh, right, you go into that in your next paragraph:
So, openly and unashamedly donating money to organizations that advocate recriminalizing homosexuality doesn’t cross a line, but a grand total of two politicians saying they’ll try to block the opening of a fried chicken stand (one of whom reversed himself and apologized the very next day), and darrakk swings into action! Those are some awesome priorities you’ve got there. Regardless, I’m sure Alderman Proco Moreno feels suitably chastised by your bold and fearless chicken-sandwich eating. That sure showed him what’s what!
I have no qualms about lying or being hypocritical if it helps achieve my goals. The ends justify the means.
I just watched the debate with Dan Savage regarding the debate over SSM. I found it very interesting. That was due, in large part I think, to the civil nature of the discourse. I thought that this thread would benefit from the words of Mr. Savage:
There seems to be more than a few people in this thread alone that disagree with that statement.
I urge all interested enough in the subject to even just read this thread to watch the debate. It’s about an hour long.
I might, depending on what he means by it. Earlier in that same mini-speech he says, “Um, you know, people can conclude that same-sex marriage is wrong, and they’re free not to enter into same-sex marriages. If you conclude that same-sex marriage is a wrong because of your faith, you don’t have a right to impose that limitation on other people who happen to disagree with you.” If he’s suggesting that someone can oppose gay marriage for themselves and not be a bigot, then I’d agree.
But I can’t find any place where he elaborates on his claim that principled opposition to ssm isn’t necessarily bigotry, so I’m not sure what that argument would look like. Every other attempt I’ve seen to make such an argument has fallen flat.
A;leady watched it. Brown had very little of relevance to say. I’d be interested in what Savage considers to be principled oppostion. He wasn’t specific was he?
My priorities are concerned with the law and its application. Freedom of speech, including the idea that “money talks” is paramount in a free society. Yes, I think it is more important than any single other right we have. Do you honestly disagree?
I’m going to address one more point, and then step away from this thread. I have read the Straight Dope for a long time, and figured the message boards might provide fair and unbiased discussion, just as Cecil does in his columns. I was wrong. Far too many people talk in absolutes. Once you do that there ceases to be a discussion. Don’t you think that in the 300+ million people in the United States there might be at least one who has no problem whatsoever with homosexuality, but does oppose redefining marriage? If so, the statement “All people who oppose same-sex marriage are bigots” is demonstrably false. If not, I really have nothing further to add to the “conversation”.
I don’t think “complete moron” is much better than “hateful bigot,” but quite honestly, yes, if someone believes preserving the definition of an arbitrary word is more important than letting gays be happy at no expense to themselves, that’s still bigoted.
And why this word? Nobody bats an eye when other words are repurposed, redefined, expanded, or restricted. Why is it suddenly marriage that needs to be immutable? The likelihood that there’s not some ulterior motive there is approximately nil.
Besides what Bosstone said, the only real point of the “you can’t attribute something to a group unless every single member of that group adheres to it” standard is to silence discussion, not have one. It means that you can’t talk about groups much at all, since it demands an inhuman level of conformity. Of course, in reality people only use that standard when they are trying to defend some group by silencing criticism of it; they certainly aren’t going to use the same standard when it comes to some group they want to criticize.
Whew… That’s getting into some mighty murky waters. What if other people do the same thing? What if they do it better than you? Do you have qualms when others lie about you?
The standard consensus of the scientific age and the enlightenment is that truth matters, knowledge is good, ignorance should be relieved by education, and that the tools of reason are the best path toward wisdom.
Yeah, now and then you need to land an army in Normandy. Now and then, you meet really dishonest people, like the scientific creationist mob. But if there are no good guys and no bad guys, only competing interests, and if all’s fair in unlimited warfare, then…remind me…what are we fighting for?
I want my rights protected by law. I don’t want them protected by a goon squad with guns…even if this year’s goon squad happens to agree with me. I have no guarantee that next year’s good squad won’t be dead-set against me.
We’re talking politics here, not science. Politicians have demonstrated repeatedly that they neither understand nor care about science and rationality; they operate on the level of the collective id.
So I will tell a politician anything they need to hear to sway them to vote for my agenda.
I’ve read many pages of this thread, and I feel there’s something critical missing.
I am a Christian and a conservative (please note, I do not say “Republican”). I would say that true Christians, that is to say, people who identify with and believe the “basic” concepts of Christianity, are not, and cannot be hate-filled bigots. People who call themselves Christians who are genuinely filled with hate or bigotry have failed to understand what the Bible tells us about who God is.
Just because a Christian doesn’t agree with a point of view does not necessarily mean that they are hate-filled bigots. Before you can make that presumption you have to determine their motive, their behaviors, and their attitudes.
For example, I was raised by a Father who was prejudice. He had a general dislike of black people and taught me the same. As I grew up and made my own judgments about the world around me, I came to the conclusion that he was wrong in his attitude and my wife and I have determined not to pass that bigotry along to our young children. My son doesn’t even think “white people” or “black people”. He thinks “people”, and when describing a black person, he says “you know, the kid with brown skin”. He makes no distinction between white and black people, a fact that makes me very proud.
Lately, our challenge is how to teach him Christian appropriate values about homosexuality without devaluing the people involved? I want him to understand that although we can’t condone the behavior, it’s just as wrong to dehumanize a person, or discriminate for any reason. We have to teach him to make sound judgments about people based on their individual character. Just because someone is black or homosexual has nothing to do with the quality of character of that person.
I think there are some important concepts to keep in mind while discussing such difficult issues as homosexuality and gay marriage.
I’ll not skirt the statement and say it straight: As Christians, we believe homosexuality is immoral. This is a religious conviction for us, the same as Jews are convicted that Jesus was not the savior, or those of the Islamic faith believe in Allah. What I do not believe is that homosexuals are “less”, I do not believe that they have nothing to contribute to society, or even my life. I have had homosexual friends, had meals with them, and engaged in their lives. I was every bit as heartbroken when a gay friend of mine passed as I have been when I lost straight friends. I went to his funeral, hugged his partner and tried to console him. This is being human, and treating people the way I would want to be treated in a similar circumstance. If I am to ostracize a gay person for what I view as their sin, then what would become of me due to sin in my own life? I strive to treat ALL people with love and compassion, not just people I agree with 100%. I’m sad to say that I sometimes fall short of this mark, and see the confusion in my son’s eyes when I do.
Now, I’m not a “pray the gay away” type Christian (I hate that phrase, by the way). I believe that it can help some, and sometimes it doesn’t help others. I don’t claim to know what the answer is and frankly I am concerned any time I hear a Christian claim to. Over the years, I’ve changed my views and now I do believe that some homosexuals are born that way (I have no cites, but I’ve read that there’s been some research breakthroughs in this regard).
I’ve also changed my views about civil unions. I used to feel they were wrong, but…our governmental system must govern all people, and not discriminate either. It must protect and serve ALL Americans. I find myself now un-opposed to the concept of a Civil Union and the legal provisions that are often set aside for married couples.
Until and unless something comes up that changes my mind, I believe, based on my Christian belief framework, that marriage is between a man and a woman and I will support keeping it that way. Now note that I distinguish between the concepts of marriage and Civil Unions, and not the legal provisions. I believe that every American, regardless of faith, gender, race, or sexual disposition, should be permitted to pursue happiness so long as that pursuit doesn’t infringe on everyone else’s rights. To me, ‘marriage’ is a religious institution as defined by Christian tenants, recognition of which has been legally observed. With that understanding, a homosexual couple cannot enter into it, but I can’t see why they shouldn’t be granted legal validation.
Our country was founded on freedom, I will support your right to pursue what you feel you need to be happy, and hopefully we can find some ground where we are all happy and feel truly validated, but respect my right to disagree with you without resorting to trying to label me as a hateful bigot.
Where in Christ’s teachings is that conviction derived from? Could it be that it’s based on some lesser impulse, with a claim to be a religious tenet applied on top to justify it? And what exactly is it thats’ sinful, according to your convictions - is it simply being the people that God created, or is it their choosing to act accordingly?
Do you understand that setting yourself up as a judge of what constitutes sin, followed by declaring another person to be sinful, can indeed appear to be defining them as less holy than yourself?
Bigots naturally don’t see themselves as bigots, because they can’t. They rationalize. Often, they try to place their beliefs behind a protective shield of claimed religious belief. Their protestations need not be taken at face value, however sincerely believed.
Maybe not “hate-filled,” but, yes, if you think that the love gays and lesbians share with their same-sex partners is “immoral,” then that is a bigoted view, and you do in fact think that homosexuals are inferior.
Saying that a person is incapable of non-immoral romantic love and seeking to deny that person legal benefits (and regardless of your conception of the religious dimension of marriage, it is also a legal institution, and one of which Civil Unions are only a poor approximation that only exist to label gay unions as “lesser”) because of that person’s immoral behavior is necessarily labeling that person inferior for bigoted reasons, no matter what your other opinions of the person may be.
I really don’t want to get into a deep dissection of biblical concepts, and I’m no apologist, but since you asked, we don’t entirely rely on the teachings of Jesus, God made his will known.
God shows us his vision for romantic relationships (some will say old testament, but even to those, the OT shows us God’s vision):
Genesis 2:24 (other verses added for context)
The man said,“This is now bone of my bones and flesh of my flesh; she shall be called ‘woman,’
for she was taken out of man.” 24 That is why a man leaves his father and mother and is united to his wife, and they become one flesh.
Romans 1 24-27 (Here, God shows us again that he has a vision for sexual relations and counts homosexuality as a sin)
24 Therefore God gave them over in the sinful desires of their hearts to sexual impurity for the degrading of their bodies with one another. 25 They exchanged the truth about God for a lie, and worshiped and served created things rather than the Creator—who is forever praised. Amen.
26 Because of this, God gave them over to shameful lusts. Even their women exchanged natural sexual relations for unnatural ones. 27 In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed shameful acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their error.
1 Timothy 1:10 (other verses added for context)
8 We know that the law is good if one uses it properly. 9 We also know that the law is made not for the righteous but for lawbreakers and rebels, the ungodly and sinful, the unholy and irreligious, for those who kill their fathers or mothers, for murderers, 10 for the sexually immoral, for those practicing homosexuality, for slave traders and liars and perjurers—and for whatever else is contrary to the sound doctrine 11 that conforms to the gospel concerning the glory of the blessed God, which he entrusted to me.
1 Corinthians 6:9-11 (an interesting note here, God does NOT prevent homosexuals from entering heaven, but only condemns the sin along with other sins, making it no worse or better)
9 Or do you not know that wrongdoers will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: Neither the sexually immoral nor idolaters nor adulterers nor men who have sex with men[a] 10 nor thieves nor the greedy nor drunkards nor slanderers nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God. 11 And that is what some of you were. But you were washed, you were sanctified, you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and by the Spirit of our God
There are other, deeper discussions to have about God’s vision for mankind, but these illustrate why we believe what we do. I think it’s interesting when some people blast homosexuals as not being able to get into heaven when Paul clearly says they can…the same way every other sinner commiting any other sin can.
God does not condemn homosexuality more or less than he does any other sin.
As I said above, in our country our laws and rights have to account for ALL Americans. We cannot only account for those with whom we all agree. “Sin” is not the purvue of the government.
It’s my belief that “marriage” is a religious institution, and my religion is Christianity so I see it through that filter. I will not be party preventing homosexuals in committed relationships from enjoying the same legal rights and protections I do, but the institution of “marriage” is not the place to ensure that. Maybe currently written Civil Unions are poorly constructed, I don’t know, but in MY vision for what they should be, it should afford the same legal rights my wife and I enjoy.
I am not setting myself up to judge what is sinful or not, I have a belief system that shows the framework of what is sin and what is not, not only in other’s lives, but in mine as well.
No, he wasn’t. I offered his quote for all those here who are of the opinion that any and all opposition to SSM is necessarily bigotry. I’ve often argued that that is not the case. I found it interesting that Dan Savage appears to agree with that position:
[QUOTE=Dan Savage]
I don’t think that opposition—principled opposition—to same-sex marriage is necessarily bigotry.
[/QUOTE]
If you accept Paul as having been God’s spokesman. Remarkably, Jesus, aka God Himself, had nothing to say about it.
I suggest you *really *don’t want to go there.
But is it the action, or the orientation that’s a sin?
The discussion is about the *legal *institution of marriage, with all the legal and contractual rights and obligations pursuant to it. That has absolutely jack to do with anyone’s interpretation of any religious teachings, or with any church’s rituals. As you know, no religious involvement of any kind is required for two persons to legally marry - and no legal involvement of any kind is required for any church to hold whatever ceremonies it sees fit.
Your decision about what religious tenets to embrace does indeed, if it includes judgmentalism, is what makes you be setting yourself up to judge.
Labeling homosexuality - qua homosexuality - a sin is itself a bigoted belief regardless of where it comes from.
That’s why I’ve always found it odd when someone raises “I don’t hate the sinner, just the sin” as a defense in this context. The view of homosexuality as something inherently wrong and bad is the entire crux of the problem in the first place.
… and it sidesteps the question of why God would create so many people whose very existence He finds sinful.