Yes. Or operating from a bigoted, or fearful point at that time. (I’m afraid of what affect this might have upon my support, afraid of political repercussions, etc.)
But he beat that fear, and made good.
Everyone else’s turn now.
Peace.
Your generous offer of a week had better be accompanied by the actual points you have laid out, here, expanded upon in historic detail, rather than expecting them to grasp those points, unaided. Otherwise you place yourself in the position of the fundie kid I once encountered who claimed that if one translated the bible into the language of someone who had never heard of Christianity and read it to them and they failed to accept Jesus as their personal savior, they were damned.
To someone who has never considered marriage as anything but a heterosexual phenomenon, I suspect that the change in world view you expect would take rather more than three bullet points and a few hours of contemplation. We probably disagree on that point, as well.
I see the views of the public changing at a steady (if too slow ) rate without even having that discussion. I understand that it is frustrating to have anyone cling to older ideas when those ideas can prevent people from living fullfilling lives. I am just not persuaded that there is any point to hanging the label “bigot” on millions of people about whom one knows nothing except their apparent opinion on a very narrowly focussed topic. And I say this based on having known a number of people who were adamantly in favor of gay rights on any level one wished to consider, but who simply could not grasp the concept of a non-heterosexual marriage.
= = =
At this point, the argument seems to have gotten to the “Nuh uh”/“Uh huh” stage with no new information being supplied, so I will bow out, expecting the peanut gallery to make up their own minds with the information ths far presented.
So you (and I) voted for a bigot?
You do it here and you will receive a Warning.
[ /Moderating ]
Anyone who opposes equal rights for gays in other affairs is a bigot for sure.
Marriage isn’t quite the same thing as a right though. It’s by definition a privilege, otherwise we’d allow absolutely anyone to marry except perhaps children.
It’s simply not as simple an issue as discrimination in hiring or housing or whatever, where race or sexual orientation have no logical connection. Sexual orientation has a logical connection to marriage, since marriage is rooted in sexual union. So it’s not quite the slam-dunk.
I think the point of marriage has changed dramatically, and there’s no good reason to exclude gays. But the comparison to other kinds of discrimination isn’t perfect.
I’m well aware of the rules. I made a point. It didn’t involve an insult. I think everyone understands my rhetorical device of accusing someone of hypocrisy.
I disagree. None of these points require anything beyond the most widely known facts to grasp, and someone who’s thinking about the issue may see them clearly. It is common knowledge that language changes; it is common knowledge that our culture used to be much more homophobic than it is now. Someone who’s deciding whether to allow SSM or to preserve an aspect of the traditional meaning of the word is blatantly confronting the third point.
Again, this isn’t about what’s frustrating or not. It’s also not about what the point of the label is or not. The frustration isn’t really a matter for great debates, and I agree that it’s often unhelpful to call someone a bigot, even if they are. The question is whether these views ARE bigoted. If they aren’t, then it’s never appropriate to call folks who hold them a bigot. If they are, then it might sometimes be appropriate, but whether it is, and if so when, that’s another debate entirely.
So if I were, for example, to persuade you that in the US, marriage is legally a right, not a privilege, you’d withdraw this argument?
Nothing in your posting history has led me to believe that you actually are aware of the rules, thus my note.
As long as you do not cross the line, we are fine.
If its a right, does that mean anyone who wants to marry should be able to do so?
Spare me the quotes from Va. v. Loving, I’m familiar. I don’t dispute that case’s logic either. I’m just pointing out that marriage excludes people, by definition. It is something the government hands out. You have to get a license, and there are certain qualifications. That’s not quite the same thing as a right in the sense of other civil rights.
I see no reason to exclude gays. I have no problem with Va. v. Loving either. I’m just saying that something that requires a license, and comes with other restrictions, is not quite a right in the same sense as other rights.
You keep saying, “by definition.” What definition are you using, and what do you mean by “excludes”–are you talking about the institution, or are you talking about an individual marriage?
But I think, in this post, you’re admitting that it’s legally considered a right, despite the differences you believe you see between it and other rights. Is this correct?
Edit: Turner v Safley shows the deference our laws give to this right. More cases upon request, but it’d be better for you to explain exactly what you mean first.
Outside of age restrictions which they tend to exempt down in age compaired to the normal limits on signing a contract and kinship restrictions what are these unamed restrictions you speak of?
Can you state any other law that restricts the rights of two adults to enter into a contract based on their gonads?
Note, until about the turn of the last century marriage rarely involved romantic love. It was almost always a matter of practical life.
Also note that the states recording of marriage has typically been about resolving inheritance disputes with a little dash of eugenics tossed in.
Many of the largest religious groups in this country even considered marriage a secular task and did not involve the church.
There were also not as many taxes on inheritance to non-married persons nor were there as many restrictions on medical visitation or who will have custody of the children after death.
This means that there really was little reason to have gay marriage, now that it is almost exclusively based on romantic love and the laws severely penalize those who are couples and not married there is a very real reason for SSM.
So besides being a generic fallacy in the first place there really is no meat in the claim that people are protecting “traditional marriage”
Poly marriage.
And why not let kin marry if they are, for instance, same sex, or one is sterile? They can’t produce children, and therefore can’t produce genetic abnormalities, after all. No rational reason for that.
It shouldn’t be shocking to us that laws on marriage, which are deeply rooted in sexuality, have involved gonads.
I don’t think they should any more, because the role of marriage has changed so much. But it’s not quite the same thing as, say, racial discrimination in employment, which never had a rational basis in history.
You need a license to marry. That means you have to qualify first. That defines it as exclusionary.
I’d say it’s a sort of right, but not exactly comparable to most others.
Several states like Utah do, up to first cousins but note that as Kin most of the advantages of marriage are lost. E.G. Kin has a right to hospital visitation, inheritance and guardianship of children.
So you admit your issue with gay marriage is that there is gay sex?
There is your bigotry, why do you care what other consenting adults do in their own bedrooms? By what right do you remove their ability to be at the bedside of their loved ones at the time of death. By what justification do you make the children they raised together wards of the state because you are bothered by what others do in the privacy of their own home.
That is EXACTLY why it is bigotry.
You do know that the word “define” has something to do with “definition,” right? Because it doesn’t define it as exclusionary: needing a license doesn’t define something as exclusionary. Are you looking for a different word, something that’s not exclusionary that means “you need a license”? I genuinely don’t know what point you’re trying to make, how whatever word you mean to use has something to do with whether marriage is a right.
You need a license, for example, but the qualifications are very simple: you must be an unmarried adult. You also must be wanting to marry one other consenting unmarried adult. In most states, that adult must be of the opposite sex, although that’s unjust and is changing. If you meet those very basic existential qualifications, the state cannot deny you a marriage license. Not if you’re a jerk, not if you’re a convict, not if you owe thousands in child support, not for any reason. It’s a right just like other civil rights.
Plenty of other rights–the right to a public education, the right to emergency medical service, the right to operate a radio station, the right to equal access to public establishments, etc.–are subject to much greater qualifications than the right to marriage is. Your idea that marriage is less of a right than any of these others is unfounded.
That it’s ALWAYS been between a man and a woman, is one of the stupidest arguments ever. There was a time when, ‘it had always been…’, that children worked in mines, that women were denied education, that slavery existed.
Then things changed. When people’s consciousness was raised, popular opinion turned, on all of these, ‘it’s ALWAYS been’, issues.
The wind of change has already blown through on this issue. Good luck to those intending to turn back time, I don’t see it happening. Against the back drop of changing societal views;
All instances of homosexuals being denied the right to marry their partner are both hateful and bigoted.
But I didn’t just say “you need a license.” My point is that the license requires qualifications. Anything you need a license for isn’t quite a right.
It can’t?
Could the state abolish marriage altogether? Get out of the marriage business? If so, how is marriage a right?
So the state can’t discriminate against, say, convicts either? It can’t take away the voting rights or gun rights from felons?
There is no right to a public education. There is only a right not to be discriminated against in certain factors (race, sex, religion, etc) in public education. The state could abolish public education, or exclude people based on all sorts of factors, if it chose to.
Another good example - there is no right to operate a radio station. You need a license. Very few people get them. Again, the state cannot discriminate based on certain factors, but the government can otherwise set any qualifications it wants for it, including letting absolutely nobody operate one.
Civil rights involve basic rights that everyone has - the right to vote, etc. - and the right to equal access to them without regard to irrational factors like race, sex, etc. as defined by law. Operating a radio station is not a civil right, is it?