If we have established that all known arguments against SSM are bigoted, then isn’t it reasonable to assume that someone who opposes SSM is bigoted until they demonstrate their new non-bigoted argument?
But if I think opposition to same-sex marriage is itself bigoted - and I do - this doesn’t matter. The arguments may vary, but they’re made in support of a bigoted position.
To draw a conclusion about the arguments that have been used in opposition to same-sex marriage. It’s one thing if you haven’t heard them, but if you have (and I think most of us at this board are plenty familiar with the basic arguments) there’s nothing wrong with drawing a conclusion: the arguments are basically nonsense grounded only in religion.
No, I don’t think so.
You say “we have established” as if it’s scientific fact.
Calling a policy “bigoted” is a whole different thing. This is about the motivation behind supporting that policy. I think you’re making a distinction without a difference.
Do you ever engage in a debate over them? If they are nothing but irrational nonsense, do you ever say anything more than “that’s nonsense” or “that’s bigotry?” Why bother?
Ah, there’s another one. No, I’d say that’s not fair to say at all.
So what can we say is bigoted? By your logic I can’t call a racist a bigot because there could be a non bigoted reason to be a racist we just haven’t heard it yet.
Well, I’m not claiming that it’s scientific fact, but has anyone been able to provide a non-bigoted argument? Remember, I’m not saying that there are no non-bigoted arguments, merely that none are known to us at this time.
That’s what I was going to say to you. (In fact I am pretty sure I did say it earlier in this thread.) The stance itself is bigoted. The reasons the person took the stance are not of much importance in the bigger picture even if they might be relevant in a specific discussion. I don’t think you can argue, for instance, that the language used in justifying an anti-same-sex marriage stance makes the person’s view more or less bigoted.
Yes. I’m pretty sure I established that already.
A couple of reasons: one is because I feel like it and that’s really all the reason that’s required. The larger reason is that this is a legal dispute about people’s rights and it’s an important issue, and assertions that a group of people is not deserving of basic rights should no go unanswered.
I think it is.
Asking that question doesn’t prove that nobody has.
You can’t prove a negative.
And that statement is perfectly fine with me. Others go further though.
My first thought is that this is just a circular argument.
If there is a reason for a policy that is not bigoted, then you may be able to call the policy not bigoted.
But if they are not rational, what’s the point? Why use rational debate with them if they are just bigots?
I think you’re wrong. It’s quite possible that you simply haven’t heard, or listened to, all the arguments on the other side, you know. People who say “I’ve heard it all and there’s no possible way I can be wrong” risk sounding like bigots themselves.
No, it’s not a circular argument.
I’m not sure about that. Surely the effects of the policy matter. The motivations for the idea are not the only thing that counts.
I already answered this in the post you quoted. Why are you asking again? And I didn’t say the people are irrational. I said the reasons for the position are irrational.
As I said already, this issue has been debated pretty intensely in the public sphere for the last decade. I don’t think there are a lot of new arguments hiding under rocks. In and out of courts of law and in and out of presidential politics, we’ve heard the arguments people use in support of same-sex marriage and against it.
Or they may have heard the arguments and come to a conclusion. What you are describing is having an opinion, and your comparison of opinions (or convictions) to bigotry makes no sense. I don’t know why you ever started making that comparison. Bigotry is one type of conviction a person can hold, but there are many other kinds of firm opinions you can hold. Having them doesn’t make you anything like a bigot.
Huh, there’s more effort going into parsing the precise meaning of “bigot” than most anti-SSM types put into parsing the precise meaning of “marriage”.
It’s something though.
If, as you say, a rational argument for a bigoted policy makes the argument bigoted, then can a bigoted argument for a rational policy make the argument rational?
Or are you saying the argument doesn’t matter, just the outcome? How can that be? The outcome is what the argument is about.
I think I’m saying the same thing - the two can’t be split.
Same thing - can you even argue rationally with irrational arguments?
This isn’t about having an opinion, it’s about saying that one’s opinion can’t possibly change and nothing will make one change it because one knows all there is to know.
That fits the classic definition of bigot, at least.
“bigot: a person who is obstinately or intolerantly devoted to his or her own opinions and prejudices”
Well, if the things I’ve written in this thread put me at risk of being (incorrectly, I figure) called a bigot by some vaguely-defined person or group (as your dire warnings have implied fifty or sixty times in this thread alone), so be it. We get it - you’re trying to save us from being mislabled. Your noble effort has been duly noted and internet sainthood awaits.
Thank you. 
I never made any assertions about “rational arguments for bigoted policy” or arguments becoming bigoted or becoming rational. You’re adding layers to my statements here- I guess because you find these possibilities really interesting. I have to say I don’t feel the same way. I think I’ve kept my view simple: opposition to same-sex marriage is inherently bigoted, so we don’t have to spend time figuring out if some instances of opposition are hateful and bigoted and some are not. The position itself is bigoted. That doesn’t change based on the arguments that are used to advance the idea.
What do you mean by “outcome?”
Then why all this?
You can offer rational counterarguments, yes.
Yes, it is. You’re asserting that having a firm opinion and having confidence that one’s opinion is well-informed is similar to bigotry or a “risk” for bigotry, and it isn’t. Being sure you’re correct is not the same thing as being “obstinately or intolerantly devoted” to your opinion. The bit about prejudices speaks for itself and makes your warnings rather ironic.
The circular argument is bolded.
You can’t just declare that it’s always bigoted and THEN decide why.
The policy. Gay marriage. As opposed to the motivation for the views on the policy.
But I can’t win any.
I’m the one willing to listen to opinions I don’t support without pre-judging them. You’re sure they will all be wrong from the start. I don’t know what to call that.
No I don’t. I think people with common sense who understand how communication works don’t do the kind of useless nit picking you are right now.
On this we disagree. I think common sense and a basic understanding of human communication. makes the implication pretty clear.
If I say,
“Opposition to SSM is based on bigotry” surely IMO is implied far far more than “because I’ve heard every argument that could ever exist” is.
Non sequitor.
I didn’t think so.
In any event, now we understand each other. I’m glad.
Read the thread - several posters have said exactly that.
I disagree, because it’s not just about this one issue. It’s about an understanding of the nature of man and the principles involved. It’s about the studies that have dispelled the false notions that were a major part of the opposition. It’s about being aware of how religious ad cultural indoctrination works.
and Jesus might descend on a cloud.
as a matter of principle I’ll gladly listen to anyone’s view, and I always aware that “I could be wrong” but that doesn’t make my judgement any less sure. I’m allowed to be sure the sun will come up tomorrow even though there’s a chance it won’t.
And why do you ignore that many other English dictionaries define it as
[
](http://www.collinsdictionary.com/dictionary/english/bigoted?showCookiePolicy=true)