There aren’t any reasons to oppose it other than bigotry.
“Hi, I think negroes should not be allowed to own guns. But I’m really angry for being called a racist because of this!”
Have you ever read a debate on gay marriage on this board? There have been dozens, none of them only offered ‘marriage is a fundamental right’ as the only argument for legal same sex marriage.
Banning same sex marriage is gender discrimination. Now you can take your straw man elsewhere.
The people in the video are sickening to watch because they attempt to portray themselves as victims. Gay marriage has no legal impact on their lives, they can continue stating all the bigoted bullshit they want.
What utter shit this is.
I have never seen or heard of anyone catching any flak for not cheering in the streets for gay marriage.
If you think your anti-gay opinion just HAS to be heard, don’t express it around gay people and their allies. Because of course you’ll be vilified, since you are being an inconsiderate douchebag. Just like when I hang around white people, I keep my anti-white thoughts to myself. Just like when I’m around religious people, I keep my anti-religious thoughts to myself. When I don’t want people to vilify me, I don’t say villainous things.
I share my opinions with people I know who won’t take personal offense to them.
No one has a right to not be vilified.
Can we get a cite or two on this then? You’re the second person in this thread to make this sort of claim, can you provide examples?
They’re acting like victims. They’re not.
Imagine a similar video featuring people who are sick of being vilified for daring to state their alternative view that black people should just ride in the back of the bus and stick to their own damn water fountains. That would be pretty repellent, right?
Didn’t the Supreme Court decision itself state to the effect that marriage is a right that therefore can’t be denied to some? And look, the whole being gay=being black thing doesn’t entirely work. Marriage is about relationships, in which sexual preference is much more significant than race is. I firmly believe that sexual preference is genetic, pretty much everything is. But marriage is a constraint of culture. The legal aspect has been accepted in terms of same sex couples via civil unions etc. and the religious aspect is not for an American court to decide.
And as a cultural aspect we *have *put restrictions on it, like age. This makes obvious sense in terms of informed consent. But we also allow restrictions in terms of money (pre-nupes), in terms of dissolution (divorce), and in terms of guardianship of offspring. Are these all fundamental rights? Or just constraints of culture? As Justice Scalia points out, does this mean that polygamous marriage could be considered a right? And if not, why not? For any real reason other than polygamists don’t have a strong enough cultural presence or lobbying group?
So then isn’t what this video is saying is that if I don’t completely accept something as being part of my culture I’m a bigot?
That’s pretty much the definition of bigotry.
The issue is that people are mistaking their freedom of speech for freedom from criticism.
The Un declaration of human rights says something similar, but what I asked for is neither of those things, it was citation supporting your assertion that the pro ssm side claims it is a fundamental right and stops explaining any further.
And whining like little cry babies when people call them hateful bigots simply because they express their strongly held hateful bigoted beliefs.
If are going to be a hateful bigots, they should at least own their hatred and bigotry. It just doesn’t go well with whining and being a cry baby. Plus, just in general nobody likes a whiny cry baby.
Well, it’s an analogy, which by definition, always includes some sort of difference.
OK, I agree the bus seats and water fountains examples may not be particularly apt, but we could talk about historical attitudes to interracial marriage - that’s a slightly closer analogue, is it not?
So if we had a video featuring weepy racists bleating about how they just want to tell the truth that they know marriage should be two people of the same race, that would be pretty disgusting, wouldn’t it?
It doesn’t harm anyone, and we have (among other fundamental rights) a fundamental right to do things that don’t harm anyone.
That’s a simplified version of the kind of defense of marriage as a fundamental right which I see made all the time, so I’m not sure how you missed it.
There was also this thing written by some guy, who was it, name, name, whassname, was it John F Kennedy or something no wait he’s dead… well anyway, somebody fairly well known, that gave an argument for the view that marriage is a fundamental right. Somebody else may be able to supply the name here.
He was the first guy, too.
QFT.
There were about a dozen states offering “civil unions, etc.,” most of which did not offer all the same rights and benefits as marriage. There have been literally five hundred threads about this. You should probably have read one or two of them before making stupid assertions about what they contained.
I once knew a medium. She wasn’t very good at cold reading but she did give topless massages. So, there was that.
This is exactly what I’m talking about. I do not see the statements in that video being based on hate at all. None. Zero. The fact that you interpret their non-acceptance of something as having one and only one possible cause, hate, proves the point of their complaint. That *you *are imposing your preconceived notions of hatred on them. And you’re doing it simply because it makes things easier for your argument. That if you don’t accept gay marriage you’re a hateful bigot. And that is 100% bullshit.
I hate rap music and most all of so-called black culture. Does that mean it must be because I actually hate black people and are therefore a bigot? I also hate country music and most of so-called southern culture. Does that mean I hate southerners? And why is it more ok to hate southern culture than to hate black culture? Because southern culture is racist and black culture isn’t? Or because southern culture is racist towards blacks but black culture is ‘only’ racist towards whites?
South Park did a great episode about so-called ‘tolerance’ towards gay culture. In essence to ‘tolerate’ something means just that, you put up with it, like a screaming baby on an airplane. You can still not like (or heavens, hate*!*) it, and prefer it wasn’t there, and even actively avoid it in the future. Does that mean you’re a hate-mongering bigot?! That you hate that babies have to exist and hate the parents for making one and having to bring it with them?
I’m not going to protest gay marriage, nor do I think it’s going to cause the downfall of society. But I do think that the tacit, unquestioning acceptance of it is merely because it is riding the coat tails of political correctness. And that I will protest…
Are you trying to outlaw rap music, or country western? No? Then you’re not exactly in an analogous position to the people in the video.
Right. The people in the video? They aren’t tolerant. They aren’t just satisfied with preferring there was no SSM, or avoiding it. They’re actively trying to destroy them. That’s intolerant. Is it “hateful” intolerance? Who gives a shit? These are people who are deliberately, and knowingly, setting out to try to harm me. Why the fuck should I care if they’re got hate in their heart? How is some asshole trying to legislate me into second class citizenship any better if he’s doing it out of some diseased misconception of “love?”
Hell, that guy who talks about how he has all these gay friends, like that’s a defense? That makes it worse. How the fuck can you call someone a friend, and stab them in the back like that? The rest of the people in that video are probably somewhere between “well meaning but stupid,” to “kind of mean but still stupid.” But that guy? If that guy’s for real, he’s a first class piece of shit.
You go and tilt the fuck out of that windmill.
No American court decided “the religious aspect,” nor will it. A marriage license is a government issued legal document. Before and after the SSM decision, the license had no requirement that a couple be married in a religious ceremony. Some religions only define marriage as being between a man and woman exclusively, but guess what? Some don’t. Some individual citizens define it that way, but guess what? Some don’t. There is no compelling reason for the government to discriminate against gay couples who choose to marry. It’s not a special right, it’s an equal right.
:smack::smack::smack::smack::smack::smack::smack::smack::smack:
The fact that you tolerate people has jack shit to do with whether you are bigoted. If you hate black people but tolerate them, you’re still a bigot. If you are against mixed marriages, but you tolerate them, you are a bigot. The fact that you tolerate this thing you hate doesn’t remove the hate.
The very concept that you are against gay people getting married is bigoted. It doesn’t matter that you tolerate it, it’s bigoted. If you are okay with you getting married, but are not okay with gay Joe being married, you are a bigot. Whether you tolerate it or not doesn’t matter.
Actually trying conflate what other people do that doesn’t affect you at all with your taste in music is insulting. There is no similarity. Taste and morality aren’t the same thing. Just because someone can not like the taste of yams doesn’t make it okay for them to think women should be subservient to men.
And political correctness is NOT A BAD THING. It is just the basic politeness of not offending people unnecessarily in how you speak. It’s whole purpose is to help people get along. If you find yourself constantly having to not say what you want to say because of it, that’s a problem you have. Because, if what you want to say isn’t bigoted, then there’s a way to say it in a politically correct manner.
As for your appeal to South Park: first off, while Trey and Matt are, by and large, not bigoted, they have their blind spots. There’s their episode where they tried to argue that you could repurpose “faggot” to mean “asshole motorcyclist,” which is just as possible as making “nigger” mean “horrible person”–something racists often try to say. But, more importantly, YOU COMPLETELY MISSED THE POINT OF THE EPISODE. The whole point was that being intolerant of the behavior of one person isn’t being intolerant of everyone in the same class as that person. It’s perfectly possible to think that what Mr. Garrison and Mr. Slave were doing in the classroom was unacceptable without being homophobic. The issue being brought up was the idea that, in order not to be homophobic, you had to accept anything any gay person did.
Yes, the line from Mr. Garrison made it kinda confusing, since he was talking about tolerance. But, really, they didn’t tolerate what Mr. Garrison did–he was punished, was he not? That’s the opposite of tolerance.
I’m not sure if you have some fundamentally backwards ideas about bigotry or if you are just rushing to defend people you agree with. But this line of reasoning is stupid.
And, because of that, I’ll give you a TL;DR version:
Just because you tolerate something doesn’t make you not bigoted. If the thing you are tolerating is something you are against due to bigotry, you’re still a bigot. That guy against mixed marriages is still a bigot, even if he accepts that it happens.
Edit: Yes, Miller is also correct. They aren’t even being tolerant, since tolerance would mean they wouldn’t be trying to stop it. Tolerance means you accept that what’s happening is happening, even if you don’t approve.
Ah, my mistake. OK.
Still, a cite, rather than a repeat of the same assertion would have been nice.
Who is it that you believe is unquestioningly accepting gay marriage?
I’m accepting it because I’ve thought about it, and have decided that it’s the right and decent thing to do. I’m fairly sure I am not in the minority in this regard.
If there’s any unquestioning acceptance of anything going on, anywhere, it tends to be on the opposing side - that is, unquestioning acceptance of dogma about tradition and religious values, etc.