What is included under the name of “domestic violence” to end up with a prevalence of 25-33%? I’ve a hard time believing that there could be a battered spouse in one fourth to one third of all couples.
Sigh.
In prejudice or in electoral considerations (note that I think the latter is worst)?
By the way, I think that being “hateful” requires hate. So, I think that people opposing SSM without disliking gays might be bigoted, but aren’t hateful.
It’s a distinction without a difference, though. Some people out there seem to want credit for not being hateful even though they agree with hateful people. If they want to treat gay people (or some other minority group) like second-class citizens, what does it matter if they can express their opinions without shouting or curse words?
I don’t have trouble believing it.
But I don’t know the answer to your question. If you want to find out, you’ll have to look at the cites and see what the definitions for each study are.
Pillow fights?
That is Barack and Michelle Obama’s view as Christians (one with which I disagree, also as a Christian, but that’s neither here nor there). For me the key point is that the Obamas do not seek to legislate their personal views into law for all people, as many of the Republicans do.
I think that’s a really important distinction. We can hold many disparate views about what is appropriate – it’s when we start enforcing our own personal views on others without excellent secular reason (“beating small children is wrong” carries an excellent secular reason, to give an example) that we run into bigotry and the like.
nm
No, you don’t hate, but you’re still a bigot. Being a bigot out of ignorance is still being bigoted. Saying “gays should be allowed civil unions but not marriage” is the same as “separate but equal” was back during the segregation era. It wasn’t equal – you’re simply saying that gays should be treated like second class citizens.
What sickens me is when you have children as young as three shouting these slogans along with their parents. My parents and I were watching a news segment where a kid about 3 or 4 was singing a song with the chorus, “Ain’t No Homo Gonna Make it to Heaven”, at a church service. Charming, huh? It was the kind of voice that should have been singing, “Old MacDonald”, not something like that.
And as my dad said, he probably doesn’t even know what a “homo” is. It’s absolutely disgusting.
Folks, here’s the deal: if you’re going to make bigoted statements, admit you’re a bigot and move on. Don’t like being called a bigot? Don’t make bigoted comments! See how easy that is?
In fairness, Old MacDonald was about bestiality.
Well, I’m not sure anyone ever called Paul Wellstone a bigot, but more to the point, as you note, that vote was 15 years ago and most if the people listed there either have clearly changed their minds(Wellstone certainly would have we’re he alive).
Beyond that, I don’t the question is if it’s possible to be against gay marriage for non-bigoted reasons but if one can object to gay marriage in present day America/Canada/West for non-bigoted reasons.
I’m sure if either of us jumped in a time machine and asked Martin Luther King, Hubert Humphrey, Adlai Stevenson, or Mahmata Ghandi their opinions on gay marriage we wouldn’t agree with their answers, but we wouldn’t label them bigots.
Yeah, actually, I would, on this issue. I wouldn’t kick them in the shins or anything, but if they’re holding a position that denies rights to people, I’d call it a bigoted position.
Maybe it’s worth clarifying something:
I figure there are two pretty good reasons to pass judgment on people.
If it’s someone I’m likely to have to deal with in the future (a co-worker, a friend, a politician, whatever), I might make a judgment on their behavior to help me decide how to act in response to them. Do I trust them to do the right thing? Do I need to tell them off for something they’ve done? Do I think they’re so awesome that I ought to solicit their advice? Do I need to press charges? Do I vote for them? A judgment on them informs my relationship with them.
If it somebody I’m unlikely to have to deal with in the future (a celebrity, a fictional character, a dead person), I might make a judgment on them to clarify my own proper behavior. Did they act as a decent person should? Should I do what they did? What led them to do a crappy thing? A judgment on them informs my own moral compass.
Saying that Gandhi is homophobic falls in this latter category. Similarly, criticizing the class system in Harry Potter falls into this latter category, as does noticing the profound antisemitism of the Brothers Grimm or the Arabian Nights. I’m not going to write fanfic in which I chastise Dumbledore for the house system, and I’m not going to build a time machine that lets me go kick Gandhi in the shins, but I will point out poor behavior when they engage in it.
The only leeway I give to bigots is whether they had the ability to be exposed to non-bigoted thinking before an age where their beliefs were mostly set in stone.
For example, my grandpa still occasionally thinks things about Mexicans that sneak out. He can only grasp that it bothers us when he does so, but not that there is another way of thinking–it’s been too long. But I have no doubt that, if he were born later, he’d be on our side–it’s just part of who he is. He gets a pass.
The same goes for historical figures. But not people in this day and age; unless they are just in some backwater, they’ve had time to grow up with the idea that their beliefs are bigotry. Particularly when they keep claiming things that are in the Bible that aren’t there, I can’t give them a pass. (It may decry homosexuality, but there’s nothing about the proper family.)
And here is where some of the money raised from the sale of those oh so tasty Chick-fil-A sandwiches goes.
Bryan Jonathan Fischer the Director of Issues Analysis for the American Family Association, hosts the talk radio program Focal Point on American Family Radio in which he advocates kidnapping children from same sex parents.
Nope. Not bigoted or hateful at all.
Not all opinions are equal. They have to be based on something. When they are based on dogma, emotion , and tradition rather than principles and current available knowledge. When your opinions result in actions that harm others by denying them equality, that’s the definition of bigotry.
“I just sincerely don’t think black people or women are smart enough to vote” wouldn’t be considered just a difference of opinion would it?
“Dan Cathy also said: “I think we are inviting God’s judgment on our nation when we shake our fist at Him and say, ‘We know better than you as to what constitutes a marriage,’ and I pray God’s mercy on our generation that has such a prideful, arrogant attitude to think that we have the audacity to try to redefine what marriage is about.””
I noticed right away that this was left out of the OP. Pretty significant. It reflects an attitude in religion that I always find objectionable. He speaks of the arrogance of people who think they know better than God and apparently fails to notice the inherent arrogance of assuming his views and God’s views are the same.
I’m offended when individuals or groups speak of God’s will as self appointed authorities and fail to recognize that their belief is still primarily their personal opinion.
In fact I think the religious teaching of humility should translate into the realization that while they have certain beliefs right now, they still have things to learn and may be wrong. Christian history is full of examples of beliefs changing as people learned and grew. It’s undeniable that people used their religious beliefs and distorted biblical quotes to support all kinds of bigotry in the past. Shouldn’t we expect reasonable people to consider those clear facts?
That said, I think all opposition to SSM at this point is bigotry considering several things.
There are no rational fact based arguments left to opposition to marriage equality. They play semantic games and try to rephrase in order to appear reasonable but there’s no substance, no real foundation of facts and reason to the opposition. It’s all religious dogma, emotion, and references to tradition.
I’m not sure I’d say hateful in the literally “full of hate” sense. I would say willfully ignorant in their bigotry. People are not one thing, and otherwise decent and good people can be dead wrong on certain issues. That doesn’t mean they are incapable of anything positive, but regarding this issue specifically, stubbornly clinging to dogma and emotion , to the detriment and harm of innocent people certainly dwells in the “hateful” neighborhood.
I think context is relevant, what information is available, societal norms etc. All a factor. We grow as individuals and as a society over time, generations. I don’t see all who oppose SSM as literally full of hate, but I think bigotry certainly applies.
I don’t see the sense or superiority in responding to hateful ignorance with righteous hatred and resentment.
In the light of ongoing studies and data , and our history of civil rights struggles I understand patience being exhausted with those who stubbornly deny facts and grasp for semantic justifications for their views.
I see your point. IMO there are no rational arguments left to those who oppose SSM. When all your rational thinking is exhausted and you still stubbornly cling to dogma , using semantic games to try and appear reasonable, it certainly dwells in the hateful realm.
I also think it’s important to realize we all have our human failings, our personal bias and blind spots. We can strongly disagree with those who oppose SSM without committing the same offense they are guilty of. Harsh judgement and condemnation.
I see a lot of self righteous condemnation out there that IMHO only makes the divide greater and harder to eventually overcome.
Agree and disagree. You’re right that it’s not always helpful to engage in harsh judgment and condemnation. Sometimes it’s better to talk quietly and compassionately to a bigot, to create a context in which they can change their minds without losing face.
On the other hand, you’re wrong to say that’s the same offense they’re guilty of. Someone who opposes SSM is guilty of denying equal rights to their neighbors based on prejudice or ignorance. That’s not remotely the same thing, either in act or in motive, as yelling at someone for being a jerk to their neighbors.