Yes, this is the issue. Merriam-Webster - : a person who strongly and unfairly dislikes other people, ideas, etc. : a bigoted person; especially : a person who hates or refuses to accept the members of a particular group (such as a racial or religious group) and * a person who is obstinately or intolerantly devoted to his or her own opinions and prejudices; especially : one who regards or treats the members of a group (as a racial or ethnic group) with hatred and intolerance*.
Note the especiallys above - hatred is not the key word for me. It is common in bigotry, but not necessary in my opinion. Unfairly is really more central. As I regard opposition to same sex marriage fundamentally, intolerantly and utterly illogically unfair, it falls into the bigotry pile.
I am completely for SSM and am pleasantly astounded at the rate it has won over in the states and in public perception. That said, I’m not convinced that opposition has to be bigoted. I think it’s possible to have dispassionate reasons for opposing it that do not rely on hatred of homosexuals such as an actuarial view of the costs versus the benefits. I don’t personally think these reasons are sufficient to keep homosexuals from marrying but I’ll accept that they can be held without some burning distaste towards homosexuals as people.
I also think that people using that perspective are in a distinct minority versus people who consider homosexuals to be dirty, sinful or lesser people and want to block SSM on those grounds. So while it may be possible to hold an unbigoted opposition towards SSM, chances aren’t favorable towards that being the case.
If you feel another’s person’s relationship isn’t as worthy as your own for some benefit or title, like marriage, that’s bigotry no matter where that belief comes from. A religious book, your parents, the tiny pink unicorn that lives in you left eyebrow - it doesn’t matter.
Actually, I do feel that some other people’s relationships aren’t as worthy as my own for the benefit or title of marriage.
For example, abusive relationships, that are held together by one partner’s physical and/or psychological dominance over the other.
Or, relationships in which the people involved don’t have a particularly strong connection to one another, have no intentions of staying together long-term, and just want to marry to gain some practical advantage, like a green card or an excuse to throw a big party and receive lots of gifts and attention.
Probably not “hatred,” but a little ignorance, a little intolerance, and throw in some stubbornness.
Sure, there’s a difference between being an enthusiastic KKK member and someone who is “uncomfortable” with his daughter marrying outside of her race. Doesn’t make the father a non-bigot, perhaps just more of an otherwise decent guy.
The Bible says to do (or not do) a lot of shit. People tend to cherry pick what passages they want to follow based on what already justifies their pre-conceived beliefs.
By the way, no one holds a gun to people’s head and forces them to follow the Bible. There’s no longer an Inquisition where we burn witches and infidels at the stake. So “the Bible told me to” isn’t really justification IMHO. I would expect a thinking person to reject a religion or portions of a religion that were outdated or conflicts with their morals.
No, it’s based on love and tolerance.:rolleyes:
Why is it that every bigot thinks they aren’t a bigot just because they don’t shave their head, tattoo a Swastika on their arm, cut some eye holes in a bed sheet and burn a cross on an inter-racial gay couple’s lawn?
All bigotry is based in a fundamental belief that certain people belong in a different group that should be subject to different laws or rules. A fairly good clue that you are doing this saying things like “they” or “those people” when referring to some other group.
Really the question is what valid reason, religious or otherwise, is there to oppose gay marriage any more or less than interracial marriage or marriage between a brunet and a ginger?
There was a Quebec election last month in which one of the two main issues was what I will call “The charter of xenophobia” (it was actually called the “charter of values”). Some proponent wrote an op-ed piece in the Montreal Gazette which can be summarized as “I am not a xenophobe, I just don’t like furriners”. Bigoted? What do you think? Another celebrity imagines a scenario in which a public pool was closed to women because some Muslims objected to women in swim suits. She presented it as fact (or appeared to; if you read what she said carefully, you realized it was invented). The Quebec prime minister excused her on the ground that she was “speaking from her heart”. Does speaking from your heart excuse bigotry? Your call.
The strangest comment on SSM is that it somehow interferes with straight marriage. In what way?
I can accept that some people really think homosexual behavior is forbidden by God. But that doesn’t give them the right to impose their beliefs on everybody else as law.
Didn’t Hitler’s beliefs about the character of Jews stem from the Bible? One person’s religious belief does not make it OK for them to dictate others’ peaceful behaviour, castigate them as sinners or deny them basic rights.
I have heard statements that SSM threatens the institution of marriage, but I’ve never heard a direct argument to support that. The author of the article I’m citing below claims that such interference is a strawman argument that SSM opponents don’t actually make. The arguments do seem to vaguely suggest that children of same-sex couples are somehow troubled and contribute to societal problems. Ah, here we go:
They do not cite a source, of course. The author does not have a well-argued point but seems to point to loss of liberty using a slippery-slope argument referencing some businesses who may be subject to state or local law prohibiting them from discriminating against gay couples (classic example is the photographer who declined to photograph a gay wedding). However, this argument is not an argument against SSM per se, but rather an argument against considering homosexuals a protected class for purposes of defining discrimination.
Here’s an example of the argument that ranks high on Google. (Warning: Nausea-inducing background color.) This example, however, is a bit circular. Not compelling.
I didn’t ask what the speed of light in a vacuum was. Bigotry is a subjective thing, so if 85% of people say something is bigoted, for all practical purposes it is.
But it’s back to being bigoted if you’re against the State being involved in same-sex marriages differently than you’re against the State being involved in opposite-sex marriages.