People like that claim to be persecuted victims if you do anything except agree completely with them and permit their persecution of others. These are the same sort of people who think using the term “Happy Holidays” is persecuting Christians.
And short of gagging someone they can always claim to be persecuted.
I’m not following you. It was my understanding that marriage was, by definition, an inclusion of someone.
I think they may be talking about the assumption that marriage = sexual monogamy, which of course while common isn’t universal.
This is a perceptive and accurate statement.
This seems to be just piling on with the mood that has been established, here, without seriously giving the matter a lot of thought.
It is a difference of opinion. There certainly are people who oppose same sex marriage who are homophobes. There certainly are people who oppose same sex marriage as bigots.
However, using the Merriam-Webster definition of a bigot–a person who is obstinately or intolerantly devoted to his or her own opinions and prejudices–it takes a certain leap of logic to claim that everyone who does not support same sex marriage is a bigot. For far too many people who oppose same sex marriage, neither the “obstinance” nor the “intolerance” is objectively present.
(In fact, intolerance would better characterize several posters in this thread who are clearly “devoted to his or her opinions.”)
Opposition to same sex marriage does not have to rest on homophobia. It does not have to rest on a belief that homosexuals are not deserving of the same rights as other people. It has far more to do with a world view at a time when that world is changing more rapidly than they can understand. The earliest reference to same sex marriage that I have encountered was the attempt of Baker and McConnell to marry in Minnesota in 1970, an act that was seen, even among liberals, (IF they even heard of it–it was not nearly as well publicized as one might now expect), as a sort of off-the-wall gambit to secure other gay rights. I certainly never heard any serious discussions regarding same sex marriage prior to the late 1980s. I strongly suspect that there are people who had never heard of the concept prior to the Defense of Marriage Act in 1996, (probably completely missing the Hawaiian court decisions a couple of years earlier), and even people who never heard of the concept before it erupted in the Massachusetts courts in 2003.
The views of such people are not that gays do not deserve the same rights to marry whom they love, so much as that such people cannot even conceive [heh] of marriage outside a heterosexual context. The effect of such thinking is a denial of rights, but to ascribe the motive of such thinking to unreasoning prejudice is to fail to understand their actual situation.
Those of us who do recognize marriage as a commitment between adults for a life of mutual love, support, and so forth see prohibitions against same sex marriage as a denial of rights. Those who cannot conceive of a homosexual marriage are not looking to deny other people rights, they simply cannot understand how a marriage can even mean a homosexual union. They are not talking about depriving people of rights; they are talking about defining the world as flat or describing the voting rights of cats. It simply does not make sense to them.
I suspect that a lot of people who support same sex marriage would be far less comfortable supporting polygamous unions, today. If the U.S. or Western society embraces polygamy at some future date, people who have failed to embrace it or who have spoken in defense of monogamy may well be viewed as bigots at that time, regardless how open they were to same sex marriage, today.
As the issue continues to be aired, as more people encounter openly gay people around them and come to recognize them as people, not oddities, as the population ages and more people are raised with a different view of marriage than the established, centuries-old tradition we inherited, the number of opponents to same sex marriage will steadily decrease. Insisting that all such opponents, today, must be bigots, (as opposed to noting that that group certainly includes many bigots), simply displays a failure to understand the cognitive issues that many of them face. Name-calling may give one a personal sense of superiority, but it does nothing to encourage or promote discussion of the topic. Labeling all opponents of same sex marriage as bigots simply gives those opponents who are not actually bigoted a reason to turn away from the discussion, closing them off from hearing all our perceptive arguments.
Labeling all people in 1955 who supported segregation based on race, bigots is historically accepted as a truth. I wonder how opponents of SSM will be viewed in 2057?
Some people who want to marry each other cannot, even with gay marriage. Therefore some are excluded.
Sure… But the reasons differ, and some reasons are acceptable, while others aren’t. A restaurant may refuse service to anyone, and exclude serving rowdy people, smelly people, or people not wearing shirts & shoes. But they can’t exclude black people from service. So for marriage: we generally exclude from marriage people who are already married. (Bigamy.) But to exclude gays, simply because they are gays?
Sure; the people who say, “A man can’t marry a man.” (It reminds me of people who used to say, “You can’t put two carburetors on an engine.” To them, it “just stands to reason.”)
But with the issue so widely discussed, can such purity of ignorance really be prevalent?
I don’t think we should exclude gays. I’m just saying that my opinion still involves a judgement about who should NOT be allowed to marry. Framing marriage as a right doesn’t work. If you allow gays to marry, you’re still denying others the privilege. And that also means that you can’t go around saying that the only motive for opposing gay marriage is hatred of gays. If that’s true, it means you and I and most other people hate everyone else who still can’t get married.
(No doubt many people are motivated by hatred though, of course).
It’s so interesting that you truncated the definition, isn’t it? I’ve already offered the full definition, but in case you or others have forgotten, here’s that definition from your link. I’ll underline the part you left out.
So, no, folks who oppose anti-SSM bigots, or who oppose anti-multiracial bigots, aren’t themselves bigots. That’s a classic conservative canard, and I’m genuinely surprised to see you trot it out. None of the folks who call for equality think that we need to respect intolerant opinions.
If someone refuses to tolerate a gay person’s marriage, and treats gay folks with intolerance by refusing to extend to them the same dignity they extend to straight people, then yeah, in this instance, they’re bigots, just as if they refused to tolerate a black person’s marriage to a white person. Someone who claims that this is a bigoted position is just using words the way they’re commonly understood. Someone who claims calling a bigot a bigot is a bigoted thing to do is engaging in Orwellian–excuse me, I should say Luntzian–doublespeak.
The first sentence may be true. The second sentence, though, is by definition false, except for those people who oppose all marriage. If straight folks deserve the right to get married to the person they love, but gay people do not, then homosexuals are not deserving of the same rights as other people.
How can you describe a situation in which a person has made up their mind before studying the facts and considering the ramifications of their ideas as anything other than prejudice? That’s what prejudice is: a preconceived judgment. And if they hold this judgment in spite of the facts and in spite of the deleterious ramifications of this judgment, that’s an obstinate holding to opinions.
So are there any types of marriage you would not allow?
Yes. Marriages that are likely to cause a clear and objective harm to someone, without any overriding good.
You are giving a possible psychological explanation for bigotry, but that does not excuse the bigots. I don’t think many bigots of any type just decide they feel like being bigots. Consider white southerners in the early 1960s. They grew up with an accepted social structure, and were exposed to it every day. Which is unlike many of us older people who hardly knew gay people even existed, outside of Hollywood stereotypes, 50 years ago. When Civil Rights came the southern world view was definitely under pressure. Many blamed outside agitators for the troubles, convinced that the black people they lived with couldn’t possibly be unhappy with Jim Crow. But bigots they were.
This certainly explains why they didn’t agitate for it 20 years ago, but today not being able to conceive of the concept would be a bit odd. Sure, they might not get why anyone would be interested in someone of the same sex, but the concept of marriage?
At this point, you are practically calling them cretins. Some might be, but most? And definitely not the leaders of the anti-SSM movement.
Bigoted against who, exactly? If there were no good secular reasons to oppose polygamy (and I think there are) then those who did might be called either irrational or be accused of trying to impose their religious beliefs on others.
So, we have non-bigots supporting bigoted laws? Lots of southerner wouldn’t have called themselves bigots either - they opposed desegregation for the good of everyone. or so they thought. Didn’t make them not bigots, though.
So does that mean you’re bigoted against those you would exclude?
Then any criticism at all makes them a victim. I ain’t buying it. I can see times when calling them a bigot is unproductive , but that doesn’t make it less accurate.
I think the mistake is people viewing bigot as a literally full of hate term when the word has far more range than that. People are multifacted and even good people have thier flaws. Bigot doesn’t discribe the whole person or everything about them but it does decribe thier attitude about this one issue.
Otherwise good people don’t like to be labeled with unattractive words like bigot. I understand. Occasionally though, we as humans may deserve that label or another label. We ought to be grown up enough to handle it.
It is unproductive when it is inaccurate. That’s my point.
Don’t cry wolf.
Sure, but if you throw it around too much, it loses all meaning and power, like any word.
I have given the matter a lot of serious thought using the definition you quote.
It seems poster Torn is a very thoughtful decent person who is seriously weighing the ins and outs of the issue , and has confessed to some attitude changes. I admire and respect that. I have friends and relatives who oppose SSM, and while I don’t agree with them on this issue , this one aspect of thier person does not diminish my love for them one bit. They are still bigots on this one issue IMHO, by the definition you gave.
One problem I see is equating the term bigot , with real hate when the term has far more range in application. Maybe your aversion is hatred, maybe ignorance, maybe religious belief, but it seems to me that when you target a specific group and deny them the rights you already have , for reasons that are not grounded in a factual consideration of the issue , but merely an emotional or dogmatic response, that’s pretty much the definition of bigotry.
The knee jerk response to being called a bigot might be, “I’m not a hateful or bad person” and that may be true. People are multifaceted and one blind spot is not the sum of who they are. Their good qualities may vastly outweigh thier view on SSM, but they are still a bigot on that one issue.
For a lot of people thier response to SSM, is based on decades of religious indoctrination , even those that aren’t all that religious. The general attitude was that homosexuals are sick and perverts. So , what, now we’re going to allow sick perverts to marry? We’re going to be forced to confront our aversion when two men kiss in public or walk around holding hands? We shouldn’t have to go through that. Somebody do something. I understand that people can’t help what they feel, and aren’t guilty of anything because of a feeling. They do decide how to act concerning that feeling, and that’s where bigotry comes in.
Even if it’s through a lack of experience and understanding, with no real malice toward anyone or any group, if you look at the issue and simply can’t let go of whatever it is that bothers you and move to deny your fellow citizens who have done you no harm, the same legal protections you have, that’s bigotry.
It’s a person who is obstinately or intolerantly devoted to his or her own opinions and prejudices.
That would include the disgusting assholes of Westboro Baptist, and a decent person like** Torn**, my son, or my sister. I can very much tell the difference between the degrees of bigotry.
Someone like Torn who has clearly given the issue a lot of thought, and seems to sincerely want to do what’s right, and treat people decently and fairly has already evolved somewhat and because of his nature as a decent person, will probably continue to grow. I feel the same about my friends and family. I have faith in thier ability and desire to grow. Still, for the moment , on this singular issue, the term bigot applies.
Do I think it’s usefull as a crudgel to pound the opposition with. No. Do I think it makes me or anyone morally superior? No, and it’s unfortunate when it’s used that way. “All have fallen short” I think we ought to be aware of the differences I mentioned and recognize them. I don’t think “You’re a bigot, end of discusssion” is a useful conversation with someone who is willing and able to express thier views and listen to mine. I do think it might be good for those otherwise decent people to understand that the term does apply to them. Good people don’t like to hear those labels but sometimes it’s nessecary and can help then revist thier feelings and thought process. If they react with “Am I?” rather than “Well I have a right to my opinion, and I’m a good person” or maybe both, then we’ve made a little progress. Grown ups ought to able to hear and process the uncomfortable truth.
**
[quote=“lance_strongarm, post:395, topic:630653”]
It is unproductive when it is inaccurate. That’s my point.
Don’t cry wolf.** Except it is accurate.
I agree. It has been thrown around a lot without a lot of discussion. I think rather than abandon it altogether it’s better to use it judiciously, and qualify it.
Bigot, does not mean “completely awful person in every aspect” It simply mean you have a problem with a certain group and you’re clinging to it and justufying it.
In this context, some have claimed that you can’t possibly oppose gay marriage and not be a bigot. I don’t think that’s true.
Actually, I am not at all sure that your claim for “historically accepted as truth” is accurate; certainly many people would express it that way, but I have seen no evidence that it is a universally held truth. However, even if it were, there is a difference in the situations: Segregation was imposed from around 1895 through 1915, being protested throughout that period. By 1955, there had been an additional 40 years of open debate on the topic. FDR’s segment of the Democratic party was openly campaigning against Jim Crow laws as early as 1940 (though soft-pedalled in the South). In the case of SSM, we are looking at a situation that hardly made the public consciousness until fewer than 20 years ago and has only been widely discussed in the last few years and the very notion of homosexual “equality” is a change to a tradition that is millennia old in our society.
I suspect that you move in circles where a lot of people discuss these issues at length. I still know folks to whom the discussion, itself, is alien and anyone in those circles who would mention it would be on the side that provides feedback supporting the original beliefs. I get shocked looks any time I comment on it from people to whom I have to explain my reasoning. They often simply cannot grasp the concept.
I did not truncate the definition; I omitted the usage note. However, your assertion that the opinions of all people who oppose SSM are motivated by “hatred and intolerance” is merely projection of your belief that it is so. You are basing that on your own circular argument that, since opposing SSM is “bad” it must be “hatred” or “intolerance” that motivates it. Yet, Obama got the “Don’t Ask; Don’t Tell” law repealed, even before he changed his mind regarding SSM. I do not recall magellan01 posting anything that demonstrated “hatred” or “intolerance” of homosexuals except (in your vierw) his opposition to SSM. The same is true of a rather large number of people. They would never treat a gay person with disrespect, publicly or even privately, but they simply can’t get their head around the idea of Same Sex Marriage.
Well, since I did not say that, I have not “trotted it out.” Nor have I expressed a need to “respect intolerant positions.” If anyone wishes to bash James Dobson or the Family Research Council or similar groups that are clearly expressing bigoted views toward homosexuals, I take no issue with that. I merely have noted that several posters have slapped the “bigot” label on a much larger group of people, unfairly in my opinion, and some subset of those people have gone further to express hatred and intolerance based on an obstinate or intolerant devotion to their own opinions.
Again, (although you will simply shrug it off), if the motivation to deny SSM is a world view that simply cannot conceive of such an action, rather than a desire to “deny” rights to a specific group, then they are not expressing hatred or intolerance. I agree that we should work to expand and change their world view. Calling them names simply makes you feel superior without addressing the actual issue.
So, you are prejudiced? What, exactly, have you done to study the “facts” before you arrived at your beliefs? (In this regard–following your definition–I would tend to say that I am prejudiced, in that once I came to see homosexuality as a human condition, I did not spend hours searching for information to change my views. Those views have tended to flow from that original belief without a great deal of “studying the facts.” Any studying of facts has been prompted by my personality as a data sponge rather than in an effort to reconsider my views. Of course, I think your definition of prejudice, as applied here, is facile and simplistic, but if we use it, I suspect that both of us qualify as prejudiced.)
I have said nothing about how anyone “feels.” I simply note that their motivation is not based on hatred or intolerance, but a separate set of world views that have not yet been challenged in a forum where the people could come to see that such a view was in error.
To people who immerse themselves in such discussions, all of your points are self-evident. To people whose lives are not centered on such discussion, they can probably go years without even encountering such a discussion. They are not going to get a serious discussion on the sound bites of the evening television news. Newspaper readership had fallen by orders of magnitude prior to this discussion making it into the news. NPR hardly has a universal audience. The Sunday morning political shows address the politics of the issue without ever actually addressing any moral or ethical (to say nothing of psychological or social) aspects of the issue.
I am not calling them cretins; I am noting that different people pay attention to things that are relevant to their lives and if a person does not know any openly gay people and does not happen to have an interest in delving into social events that seem to go on with or without their involvement, they are liable to be unaware of the deeper arguments in either direction and will continue to hold the beliefs with which they were raised.
The civil rights movement was not a similar event. It confronted every Southerner every day of his or her life. Drinking fountains and entrances to other facilities were labeled "white"and “colored.” By the 1960s, (not the 1950s), the newspapers were filled, daily, with stories about the conflicts and national TV was showing the police with dogs and fire hoses attacking marchers.
Nothing on a similar scale is occurring in regard to the push for SSM. It is simply not that difficult for a person who has no vested interest in the topic to miss whatever discussions do occur without even making an effort to avoid them. I cannot ever recall hearing the topic even come up for discussion at work–aside from the knock-down battles I used to have with an ex-jar head in the early '90s over the topic of DADT. If it impinges on one’s life, it seems as if the whole world should be aware of it. If it does not impinge on one’s life, it is probably background noise to which one gives a mild head nod or head shake of assent or dissent while giving it no more thought.
President Obama appears to have changed his views on the topic. On this board we saw Bricker change his views on the topic. You might wish to claim that they simply decided to stop being “bigots.” I would guess that a more accurate assessment would be that it was not an issue that they needed to confront for most of their lives and that when they did need to confront it, they looked at the situation and came to a conclusion diffrerent than the one they originally held. The overwhelming majority of people have neither a political requirement nor even the challenge of participating in a recreational debate in which they would reconsider their views. Calling all those people “bigots” is meaningless.
And, of course, nothing I have said would generally apply to the leaders of the anti-SSM movement. I have been reacting against the use of the word bigot to denigrate every person who happens to oppose SSM, arguing that it is neither accurate nor productive. People who really have studied the issue and realize that they are espousing a form of intolerance are open to charges of bigotry. Nothing I have posted could be considered a defense of James Dobson or Peter Sprigg against an accusation of bigotry. I simply find the sweeping condemnation of all opponents to SSM as bigots to be misplaced.
I am very willing to say that they are wrong. I am not willing to call them all bigots and I figured that at least one poster to this thread should point that out.
= =
That you believe that you know “good reasons” to oppose polygamy will simply put you into the same category, (if polygamy is ever legalized), as those who believed that they had good reasons to oppose integration or SSM when seen from a future date. So, are you announcing that you are a bigot on the issue? Or do you simply have a different world view on that topic from those who would support it?
If you can show what other reality-grounded basis there could be, you’d be the first. So whaddaya got?