In the California Prop 8 trial the finest minds in the anti-SSM movement had an opportunity to present good secular arguments against SSM. And they failed miserably. You might as well wait for a unicorn as wait for a good anti-SSM argument.
Wow. Score one for tom, then. Obviously throughout this thread I’ve been focusing on a particular aspect of that definition and offering a different definition (American Heritage) that I think is better, but you’re right, the conjunction they use is “and”, not, as I read it and as I think more accurate, “or”. So according to M-W’s definition, someone that expresses only intolerance toward a group doesn’t meet the definition of bigot. Point for you!
Just as obviously, I disagree. The American Heritage dictionary definition I offered earlier–“One who is strongly partial to one’s own group, religion, race, or politics and is intolerant of those who differ”–is the one that matches more closely the usage of the word I’ve heard most often. And I discussed earlier the way in which politics is a suspect category in that list, so be careful if you decide to attack along those lines.
I will, however, apologize for misunderstanding earlier why you used “hatred” and “intolerance” in quotes–I thought you were trying to quote me, not the dictionary. Still not ironic quotes, but your quoting was appropriate, and I was wrong.
This issue is in a category different from issues like budget deficits, foreign policy objectives, or student loan repayments; it’s even different from issues like affirmative action or funding for AIDS research. Someone can disagree with me on all those issues without being a bigot. There’s room for principled disagreement.
But I’ve not, in my years of reading on this issue, seen principled disagreement. Even you, playing devil’s advocate of a sort, can’t come up with any principle greater than the principle of having trouble thinking of a word in a new light, which is no principle at all.
On this issue, after a person has encountered stories of the folks harmed by the unjust laws, I’m willing to give them about a week’s leeway to think through the issues. If, after that week, they can’t think of a wholly novel argument against SSM–one that, unlike every other argument, is principled–then either they’re gonna change their stance on the issue, or they’re gonna hold to it obstinately, in face of the overwhelming evidence against it.
Holding onto their anti-SSM stance because they don’t want to change the meaning of a word? It’s difficult to think of something more obstinate than that.
“But you fuck ONE sheep…”
This. They’ve been given their chance again and again, both on this board and the courtroom; they’ve failed over and over again. This is one of the most one sided disputes I’ve seen in my life.
And I see no reason to do what some people do and assert that there must be such a reason, purely as a matter of faith as far as I can tell. Some people just can’t seem to accept that one side in an argument can be so utterly baseless and worthless.
Only if you are changing the definition that has been in use for the last couple of hundred years. Bigotry has always been considered a character trait rather than a single event.
The sort of thing that a bigoted person would totally and obstinately ignore because his or her devotion toher beliefs would be impervious to either reason or example.
And at no time have I claimed that bigotry does not exist. I have simply noted that the mass declaration of bigotry against millions of people based on a single issue is not accurate.
And every time you find someone who recognizes that they are denying rights, I will support calling them a bigot. People who have a totally different concept of the matters being discussed cannot be legitimately accused of intending to deny anyone’s rights–particularly when so many of them change those views every year.
Anyone who want to call Hank Williams jr. a bigot will get no objection from me.
Cite? It can apply to attitude, state of mind, or behavior characteristics related to a subject too.
I know many people who are bigoted against blacks, Muslims or heck whites but it is not a pervasive personality trait. Several admit that they are and wish they could change.
I think it is your personal definition that is not matching the historical use. Please provide a cite that the term historically only applies to people with a pervasive broad type of bigotry.
The fact that they are ignorant of their actions or the implications of their actions (like voting for prop 8) does not wash their hands the fact that they are taking active steps to deny rights to individuals for arbitrary dogmatic reasons.
I have never claimed that the difference of opinion has to be principled. I do not find the arguments against Same Sex Marriage to have merit. I simply do not see the intolerance in an opposition to a single aspect of the discussion.
I doubt that very many of the people who have changed their opinions did so out of a lack of arguments for opposing SSM or persuasive arguments for SSM. Few of the people I know on either side of the issue hold beliefs on the topic strongly. Unless one is interested in the topic, it rarely impinges on the consciousness of most people. Accusations of apathy or a lack of concern would seem to be much more accurate charges to be brought against the overwhelming majority of the populace, pro and con. As homosexuality comes further out of the closet and more people encounter gays whom they had originally viewed as an alien race, (with about as much presence in the world as Martians), more people have simply dropped their opposition to a phenomenon about which they probably gave no thought. Bigotry requires a bit more effort than that sort of passive resistance.
Take this complaint up with someone who has made that claim.
I noted that bigotry has been seen as a character trait, not as a single event in one’s life. If you have an historical example of persons being considered bigots for a single event, produce it. Otherwise, your broad type of bigotry request is a straw man.
I suppose that one might be able to find an actual bigot on the topic of marriage, who hold one rigid view of all aspects of marraige in the face of all evidence and reason, but that is not the same as either your “broad type” of bigotry or the sort of unthinking opposition to SSM that pervades much of the population.
What motive outside of intolerance for those who are not like you do they have? That is what we have been asking for forever.
Every state that has had a vote has had a majority take an ACTIVE role in restricting the rights of same sex couples. This that is not apathy or lack of concern.
It is taking ACTIVE steps to deny visitation and survival rights from individuals purely based on their sexual preference.
Interracial marriage has become quite accepted over the past several decades, I see no reason to not label those who were against it as being bigoted in the past.
Maybe peoples misuse of the term “racist” which is often “bigoted” is where your argument of how the word was popularity used comes from?
Funny…you just used it that way, what do you think a character trait is?
But…
Examples.
Inter-racial marriage
School racial integration
Muslim Charter Schools
Those are all issues where some people may express bigoted opinions without it being a “personality trait”
Simply an understanding of the term that differs from how it has come to be viewed by people who accept the concept of SSM.
Marriage has occurred in every society in history and appears throughout many works of literature, but the word marriage has not been used, that I can find, to describe any same sex union prior to 1970. Changing that definition is not merely a change in disctionaries, but a change in the way one views much of the world. The overused word in business, these days, is paradigm, but changing the meaning of the word marriage is very much a world changing paradigm shift that does not need to rest on bigotry to evoke opposition. Once one has made that paradigm shift, everything seems clear that SSM should be valid, but that is a huge paradigm shift for many people. Dismissing a person’s ability to make that shift as bigotry is an easy way to igore the effort it might take for them to make that shift. I am actually surprised that so many people have been able to make that shift, not that there is still opposition to SSM.
And, again, this is not to deny that a lot of opposition to SSM is bigoted; I just see the condemnation of every person who has failed to grasp the way the world has changed to to be unproductive.
So what? At no point have I claimed that there are not bigots who are opposing SSM. I have simply objected to the claims that all opposition is bigotry, even the sort of passive “I don’t believe in it” that one finds in Gallup polls without any further effort to oppose it–the sort of opposition in which the overwhelming majority of opponents engage.
Activists get the label bigots with no objection from me.
Not really. If the opposition one expresses is based on an unreasoning hatred of mixing so-called races or a hatred of Muslims, it would seem to be a pretty clear case of bigotry–obstinately holding an intolerant or hateful position regarding a group of people.
If one opposes charter schools because one believes that all education should be publicly funded and controlled or that no religious schools–Muslim, Catholic, Baptist, Jewish, Buddhist, etc.–should be permitted, one might have odd views of education without being an anti-Muslim bigot.
One might oppose forced busing because it destroys neighborhood schools, wastes incredible amounts of money, and fails (due to white flight) to even attain its stated goals without being a bigot. (If one opposed school integration because one wanted to keep the races separate, bigotry would be a much more likely cause.)
Opposition to inter-racial marriage, per se, is probably always based on a bigoted position, (at least, I cannot imagine a reason not based in racial intolerance.)
In each case of bigotry, however, there is an underlying aspect of disdain for a group that is manifested in those views. And in none of them would the bigotry be a one-time event. Opposition to Diana Ross marrying Arne Naess while not having any care when Diahann Carroll married Vic Damone or whoever Halle Berry has married most recently would be an objection to a single event and not bigotry against inter-racial marriage.
I guess if people who have a change of heart and mind were never really bigots , we should avoid calling anyone a bigot until they die. Just to be sure.
It’s not really a single event is it? It’s being bigoted in a certain view, concerning a specific group.
Deliberately twisting my statement is hardly a sign of good faith discussion.
George Wallace, Robert Byrd, Earl Warren and numerous others were clearly bigots at periods in their lives. None of them were bigots over a single event; they all held and expressed their views over periods of time. They all seem to have changed their views in later years.
So, a bigot can clearly put aside his or her bigotry, but that does not mean they were never bigots.
In the case of the large number of people in the U.S. who have opposed SSM, I see a lot of disparate groups with rather different motives and actions. Laying the word bigot on all of them is neither productive notr accurate.
Can you define what you mean by “principled disagreement”?
Well, helloooo double standard! How the fuck is it that opposition to inter-racial marriage is always bigoted, but opposition to SSM is just a trifling little misunderstanding?
Yeah, and that’s why opposition to SSM is bigotry. Because every argument against it is rooted in disdain for homosexuals. Every. Single. One. The level of disdain certainly varies, but it’s always - always - there.
I’m not sure what you mean by “one-time event.” People who oppose SSM generally do not do so on a couple-specific level.
How about the people who voted for them? Bigots? Did someone who looked at Byrd’s campaign and thought, “He seems to be making some good points!” count as a bigot? If so, how are they different than the people who listen to, say, Rick Santorum blather on about man-on-dog sex and think, “This guy would make a great leader!”
And yet, we have millions of people who have changed their views in the last few years. Just how non-productive do you think that is? Gallup shows a steady trend, (despite a couple of dips and plateaus), of a bit more than 2% of the U.S. population changing their views over the last eight years. That is over 6 million changes of opinion each year and a total change of around 33,000,000 and I have seen no evidence that the numbers have reversed in the last year. That does not describe non-productive by any definition I would use.
Mod fight!
Wow. A simple Google searchon “Same Sex Marriage in History” turns up thousands of hits. Lets look at this one…
Hmm… just a year or two prior to 1970 A.D.
I have never claimed that the misunderstanding was trifling.
I noted that I could not come up with situation in which opposition to inter-racial marriage would not be based on prejudice–there may be one.
I have already laid out a reason that does not involve antipathy to homosexuality for a person to oppose SSM. It is not a reason with which I agree, but it exists.
Well, of course, excpet for the single one that I have pointed out in which a world view simply does not accept that the word marriage describes a particular event that happens to require heterosexual participation.
Voyager posited that bigotry could occur as a single point in time. I rejected that claim on the grounds that the word has never been employed that way. It has always been used to describe a person’s basic outlook on life, not a response to a one time event.
People who think that Santorum would make a great leader are suffering a serious impairment in intelligence regardless.
However, to your point: I would characterize someone who voted for any of those guys, knowing full well their beliefs and hoping that their racism would be a foundation ofr their political activities as either a bigot or excessively tolerant of bigotry. Every person who voted for them? Not so much in that I do not know how well publicized their racism was; I do not know whether their opponents were more racist; I do not know whether people recognized that they could advance their racist postion through their offices. For example, I have no idea whether the issue of the treatment of Japanese citizens ever came up in the 1938 election for California Attorney General. In the 1942 gubernatorial race, I would say that the overwhelming number of his supporters were bigoted.
= = =
Yes. Let’s:
Now, I will admit that I had not encountered these historical oddities–three events in over 2,000 years. However, that is rather the point: if I, who have read quite a bit of history over many years, had not encountered these individual cases, what is the likelihood that more than one or two of the millions of people in the U.S. being judged on their support or opposition to SSM have heard of them? An event that is unknown has the same effect as a non-event when dealing with people’s perceptions.
You’re not getting it.
Those arguments may have been bad ones. Doesn’t mean they were bigoted. Reasonable people can disagree.
You’re saying you are a bigot?
Wow. How arrogant can you get? Now you think your arguments are as undeniable as math?
Sorry, but I don’t accept you as an expert on all the arguments on SSM by those with whom you disagree.
A case of *reasonable *disagreement necessarily includes reasoning. Hence the word.
Is there *ever *a point, in your view, at which you can stop waiting and hoping and draw a conclusion? Is it *ever *reasonable, in your view, to decide there is no doubt left to give someone the benefit of?