You should discuss this with those on this thread who think that’s not possible, not me.
What makes you think we haven’t heard all the arguments? My GOD, we’ve been hearing the arguments about why gay rights is all wrong ALL OUR LIVES! I’ve had 40-odd (and odd, I’ll admit) years of it. If I haven’t heard every one of those arguments countless times, I’ll eat any article of clothing you care to name. It’s awfully condescending to try to tell those of us who are most affected by these arguments that we might have missed THE good one. We hear them constantly, whether we want to or not, sometimes, and I’d guess that the vast majority of us have never heard one that was actually a good argument and not based in hatred or disdain.
The one who’s going around being arrogant and smug is the one who claims to know better than we homosexuals whether we homosexuals have heard all of the arguments against SSM. That’s also the one who’s going around in other threads telling African-descended Dopers whether they have the right to decide if throwing peanuts at an African-American woman and saying “this is how we feed the animals” is racist.
You may actually not hold the belief that I attributed to you, and if you really don’t, I apologize, but it sure seems like you hold something a lot like it.
No, several people here are completely closed to that idea.
I’d say it’s rare too.
Arguments about gay marriage are hardly the same thing as unicorns. We’ve only been having this debate in this country about ten years or so.
The last I looked basing laws purely on scripture was pretty antithetical to the concept of the 1st amendment.
Bigotry can be single-issue, as you note earlier: someone who opposes interracial marriage can be declared a bigot based solely on that stance.
Which is why I’m willing to give folks a week, once they’ve encountered the arguments. Here are the things I expect someone to realize during that week:
-
Words change in meaning all the time. Forty years ago, nobody used the word “Net” to refer to an interconnected set of computers through which you could argue politics or look at naughty pictures. But nobody is agitating for laws preventing government documents from using “net” to refer to anything outside of fishing equipment. Instead, people recognize that words change in meaning all the time.
-
A major part of the reason why “marriage” didn’t refer to SSM in the past is because the main government recognition given to same-sex couples was criminal sanctions. The word’s meaning was heteronormative in large part because of rampant and systemic homophobia. Maybe the traditional meaning of the word doesn’t carry that much moral weight.
-
In the end, you have to decide either to change the meaning of the word, or to deny a basic right to millions of people based on nothing more than their personal sexual preference. Changing the word’s meaning does far less harm than the alternative.
None of these points–words change, the past was bigoted, changing the word ain’t a big deal–is complicated or hard to figure out. Giving someone a week to figure them out seems entirely too generous; it shouldn’t really take longer than an hour. But heck, take the full week.
Now, I’ll make a concession I haven’t made before. There may be someone with a mental illness who insists, in Rainmanian grandeur, that words mean what they mean what they mean what they mean what they mean. If a person suffers from such a mental disorder, then sure, they may not be a bigot.
But if you’re aware that words change in meaning, there’s not really an excuse for failing to realize the three points above.
Yeah, you’ve heard it all, old man, no need to listen to anyone. Your mind is made up!
You may make a good bigot some day.
No, that’s called logic. It is logically impossible for you to claim that you’ve heard every possible rational argument about anything.
Yep. You do not have the right to decide what is in someone elses’ head, regardless of your race.
In fact, being black doesn’t always qualify you to know better than whites what is going on in a white person’s head, does it?
I’m reminded of an interview I saw with a black woman entertainer (Lena Horne, I think, but I’m not sure) who said she thought white people all hated her because they were cold and distant. Then segregation ended and she got to hang out with whites more, and she found that they were more cold and distant with each other too. It wasn’t racism, it was just how they were with everyone.
Wait, now you’re saying you have to wait to hear what I have to say before judging it?
(And which belief are you talking about?)
So all objections to gay marriage are based on scripture?
If you think that, I don’t think you’ve got any basis for saying that you’ve heard all the arguments.
Provide examples or evidence of exceptions, without one iota of evidence of their existence yes…they don’t exist.
So lance strongarm, are you sticking to your “appeal to ignorance” stance?
Interesting point. Someone might also be mentally ill and sincerely believe the delusion that gay marriage will bring about Martian invasion or some other calamity. It’s not a rational belief, but I’ll grant it’s not a bigoted one, at least in the conventional sense.
Of course, if someone is willing to define religious belief as mental illness, I might end up letting someone who thinks gay marriage will bring about the Apocalypse off the bigot-hook, too.
(Funny, someone else just tried to use this on me on another thread just seconds ago.)
That’s YOUR stance, not mine.
OK I’m done, you are obviously not a serious poster.
Playing the “nut-uh” game may get your opponent to quit arguing but it doesn’t win the debate.
Bye then.
No need for you to discuss anything further - you know everything there is to know.
Ironic, in a thread about bigotry.
Thanks for stopping that then.
Ironically, lance isn’t listening to our arguments and by all indications has already made up his mind about at least some of us.
Ha, I called it first.
Wait - are you saying one should listen to someone else’s arguments before judging them?
By all means, present an argument. I’ll listen, without declaring that it can’t possibly be rational first.
Now you’re presuming to put thoughts in my head too. Shocking.
Well, I could quote relevant passages that would indicate that either those thoughts are in your head, or you’re being misleading about the thoughts that are really in your head, but by now I figure you’ve exhausted whatever point you were trying to make so I’ll just mock you.
Ahem.
Thanks for admitting that you’ve run out of rational arguments. I can now call you bigoted!