Knock yourself out, sport.
We should get back to the OP. I’d love to hear an answer to this.
(I speak as a supporter of gay marriage and Obama supporter, one who was disappointed with Obama’s stance).
lance_strongarm, you’re resorting to personal insults rather than making an argument, and that’s not allowed here. There is too much “nuh-uh”-ing in this thread and not enough actual discussion. I may close this thread if the signal to noise ratio doesn’t improve.
I guess I missed where Obama donated lots of money and Focus on the Family.
So now you can oppose gay marriage, but your not a bigot unless you also give money to somebody? Is that it?
Classic goalpost moving.
I didn’t mean either as insults at all, just rhetorical devices. But I will try to be more careful.
His previous one? No. His realization of that fact, once it had been explained to him at excruciating length, is what (to his credit) led him to drop it and adopt a reasoned one instead.
But those are, essentially, the reasons he had previously offered. Flawed, yes, because unreasoned.
OKay. That helps clarify things a little. I wasn’t trying to twsit anything. I just couldn’t reconcile what you were saying.
It seems to me that bigotry is often cultural. societal, indoctrinated attitude. If you grew up in the old south you were likley taught from infancy that blacks were inferior and shouldn’t expect to mix with whites equaly. the fact that a bigoted attitude was aquired in that way {like some of the folks you mentioned} doesn’t make it less bigotry. I see attitudes about gays the same way. Generations of indoctrination has created a negative cultural view that has been steadaly challanged and fading mainly in the past generation. IMO, widespread cultural learned bigotry is still bigotry. Weren’t there millions in the south who felt the way Byrd and Robertson did at some point?
Is it because we’re talking about a singular issue? It’s not bigotry because it’s just thier opinion about marriage? {even those it isn’t just that for lots of people} If someone had let go of all thier bigoted attitudes except interracial marriage, would it be bigotry?
What are you saying? The arguments may exist but if they don’t stand up to rational examination then they can’t be assigned to reason and hard data. Bigotry is certainly a reasonble conclusion. The whole issue has been a long series of speculative arguments agasint gay equality that have fallen before facts and evidence. Now nothing remains except the foolish notion of defending the definition of a word, or the vague baseless feeling that SSM will somehow harm society. Regardless of what feeling or dogma prompts oppositon , it’s bigotry.
It seems reasonable on this issue to believe that any new rational, fact based argument would be front and center in the public view. The arguments agasint SSM have changed and tried to adapt over time as new data and studies were done. Nothing new , compelling or partucularly reasonable has come along in some time.
I guess I’m not getting what you’re saying at all. Are you saying that it’s impossible to have a reasoned opinion about something and still be wrong? That if you were wrong either due to an error in logic, or an error of premises, or ignorance of important evidence, then your position, even if it was entirely based on rationality as opposed to religion or superstition or revulsion, was not “reasoned”? Well, I guess we’re back to a semantic disagreement, then, but this time over the word “reasoned” instead of “bigot”.
To me the important distinction is this. I ask someone why they opposed gay marriage, and they say “because gay couples make such bad parents, as I read in a study a few years back”. Then I provide for them actual data showing that gay couples make just as good parents as straight couples, and point out various other reasons why their position is unsound. The question then is whether they react by actually listening to what I have to say, processing it, and at least potentially changing their opinion; or by ignoring or dismissing what I have to say, brushing aside all objections, or suddenly switching to an entirely different (equally unsound) objection to gay marriage.
If their reaction is the first one, even if they do not immediately and instantly change their mind (as very very few people ever do about any important issue), then I am happy to consider their position to be “reasoned”, even if logically unsound and wrong.
No, that *as it pertains to this subject *there is no such thing as a reasoned opinion on the anti side.
If there were ever an example of that *as it pertains to this subject *we would all be much happier and less frustrated.
Then isn’t it fair, and even “reasonable”, to inquire as to *why *they embraced such a lie? And isn’t it fair, and even “reasonable” to conclude it was part of a process of rationalization of an attitude they already held? If you’re going to suggest that yes, it *can *be turtles all the way down, I’m going to be disappointed.
I have to ask, if we were debating interracial marriage, would you consider the possibility of a reasonable, but misinformed, opinion on the anti side? Or would you just consider that it’s quite likely that there’s something underlying the acceptance of that misinformation in the first place?
And probably, on another board, a bunch of people who all oppose gay marriage, and consider themselves to be the rational ones, are saying the same thing about the pro-gay marriage side.
Okay, I guess there’s nothing more to discuss. Just call anyone who disagrees a bigot.
I think a fairly large portion of the people who would espouse such a view are doing it as a cover for “real” bigotry (ie, they actively dislike and discriminate against gay people), and another fairly large portion would espouse such a position more or less out of inertia… they just haven’t thought about it too much, they don’t really care one way or the other, but they were raised with a view of society which is one way, and they’ll continue to hold that view somewhat unthinkingly until/unless something comes along and jogs them. But there are at least two other categories of people:
(a) people who honestly and with good intention just plain came to an erroneous conclusion, or perhaps were misled by convincingly presented incorrect data
(b) perhaps most interestingly, people who started out assuming a particular position was correct, developed a series of rational-seeming beliefs and arguments to justify that position, but were rational and honest enough to be willing to have those arguments challenged (ie, Bricker)
The thing is, I think the vast majority of us on the SDMB are in category (b) about many issues. For instance, I agree with the position “Obama will make a better president than Romney”. And I could come up with a variety of rational and logical arguments why I believe that to be true. But I didn’t come to that position from some platonic ideal of pure intellectual emptiness, proceeding from just axioms and data to construct an elaborate intellectual edifice culminating in that purely logical statement. Rather, I had just as many opinions and little-p-prejudices as any of us, and the position I arrived at was certainly at least somewhat informed by those opinions and prejudices. The question is whether I’m willing to listen to reason on the issue and potentially even be convinced that I’m wrong, or not.
I claim that my support of Obama is “reasoned”, as there are logical reasons for it based on actual fact, AND I’m willing to listen to other arguments and could possibly even change my mind… while at the same time I admit that I didn’t base my support on a foundation of nothing but pure logic and reason.
Honestly? It would depend when and where we were debating it. If we were debating it in 1940 Alabama, I’d suspect that underlying that acceptance of misinformation was a pervasive societal bias that tainted the information available. The anti-equality person would still be a bigot, but I’d have more patience with them than I’d have with the same bigot in 2012 Alabama.
Same thing applies, sped up, now. Someone who’s anti-SSM in 2005 is in a remarkably different cultural environment than someone who’s against it now. That doesn’t affect whether the word “bigot” applies to them, I don’t think, but it does affect my patience with them.
Whaddaya got?
So the answer to the OP is that Obama was definitely a bigot when he opposed gay marriage.