I got bored. Sorry. I do usually know better, honestly.
Shush. I am running a Turing Test here. I was afraid that the SDMB somehow got mixed up with some kind of World Net Daily talking points API or something.
Since people both lose and gain faith, change their religious beliefs and religions themselves change over time, no it can’t. It clearly isn’t anything close to immutable.
It’s mainly protected by the Constitution because the people who wrote it didn’t want their own endless rounds of religious wars & persecutions like the attempts to impose state religions did in Europe.
The slippery slope that so many here scoffed at moves from the hypothetical to real.
No doubt the fans of contorting our language and our institutions will welcome this latest contortion.
Enjoy.
I’m totally naming my future children Doll, Brynn and Kitten.
Make all of their middle names “Face.”
I’m not really thrilled by “throuple.” But anyone who thinks that is the basis for legislation has got a lot more serious problems than grammatical purity.
Except, plural marriage has been around for at least 5000 years. Their union isn’t legal, but if it became so I wouldn’t care in the slightest.
it’s an awkward term and unlikely to catch on. Nor is it my business what they call themselves, so why should I care?
And if it makes the anti-SSM types unhappy, that’s a satisfying accomplishment in itself. Like watching an anti-interracial marriage type bemoan the loss of the Purity of the White Race.
Oh, look! The Moonie Times doesn’t like marriage equality. Color me surprised…doubly so that such an honest and aboveboard poster as magellan would quote them as if they were a legitimate news source.
Too bad we can’t return to the languages of the Angles, Saxons, Jutes and Frisians, before all that contorting ruined everything.
“Authentic” marriage, huh? Well, magellan (or the person he’s quoting, anyway) has solved the nomenclature problem. Marriage between homosexuals can be “same sex marriage” and marriage between heterosexuals can be “authentic marriage.” Everybody gets a marriage. Done.
Anyway… Doll, Brynn and Kitten aren’t the first set of three to share a marriage. I’d be surprised if they were the millionth.
They won’t welcome it now, but give it 30 years. Then it will be bigotry to oppose such things. It’s the new style of debating; no need to make actual arguments, just accuse your opponents of “bigotry” and win by default.
I’m sorry, was there some part of the last six pages of argument that escaped you? You seem to be saying that the pro-equality side of this discussion has failed to make an argument. Considering that the reasoning behind characterizing opposition to SSM as bigotry has been explained repeatedly and in detail throughout this thread, I’m worried that there might be something wrong on your end. Did you know you were on page six of this thread? I can certainly see how, if you thought you were back on page one while you were reading the last few posts, it might be a little confusing, but if you of back to the beginning and read everything that’s been written here, you’ll see that there have, in fact, been lengthy explanations for why opposition to SSM is bigotry. Go ahead and catch up - we can wait. Let me know if there’s any bits you have difficulty with.
This thread? That’s generous of you - I figure the reasoning has been explained in at least a dozen threads by now.
Actually, it does not appear to have been explained, at all.
It has been asserted, repeatedly. However, I found no post in which the word bigot was explained, particularly as it related to people who do not support SSM.
I recognize that those who have been harmed by anti-SSM legislation are going to view any anti-SSM statements in a bad light, which is why I have not bothered to “correct” the use of bigot in this thread. I am also aware that those who do or do not view opposition as bigotry are probably not going to change their views, (as they are pretty much the same posters with whom I have discussed this issue in previous threads).
I think some of adaher’s arguments go astray of reality. I do not see a backlash coming to revert the vast majority of people to a 1965 view of homosexuality or marriage, regardless how fervent, or even virulent, some SSM supporters might be in their expression. However, he appears to be correct in that the word bigot is not being applied correctly or fairly to those who do (or who have, in the past,) not championed SSM.
However, for those in the peanut gallery who have not been posting, I wish to point out that the use of bigot has not actually been defined–it has been assumed. The unspoken meaning appears to be a person who holds a view contrary to the pro-SSM position. Motive does not appear to matter. Knowledge or understanding does not appear to matter. The actual definition of the words bigot and bigotry do not appear to matter.
The original definition was a person who obstinately was devoted to a position. (That would seem to cover a number of pro-SSM folks. 
)
It has come to mean a person who is obstinately devoted to a position that is antipathetic to another person or group. Based on the large (and increasing) number of people who have changed their views regarding SSM, (and homosexuality, in general), it is hard to justify an accusation that they are obstinately devoted to their views. Some have changed their views more slowly than others, but the vast majority of people are changing their views according to polls in the 1990s (27%) to a poll last year (54%). Clearly, there are bigots who will never change their views and whose views are motivated solely by fear of or prejudice against homosexuality. However, there is no evidence that they are anything resembling a majority of those who have not yet changed their views on these topics. Using support for SSM as a shibboleth that defines bigotry really does not make much sense. It simply becomes a taunting label to express disdain for people with whom one disagrees.
But it has not been defined or explained in this thread.
Bigots have a problem with other people based on some kind of characteristic that is harmless and/or immutable. Nobody chooses their sexuality, and consenting adult homosexuality doesn’t necessarily hurt anybody, so actively choosing (or passively betokening consent through your silence or inaction) to deny such people equal rights is bigotry. Now, some things are choices, like religion. Nobody is born with any religion; it’s a choice that people make, and it is fair game.
I’ve read the thread. Other than conclusory statements that opposing to SSM is the same as opposing to interracial marriage, I haven’t seen the argument for the bigotry label. To the extent that not allowing two consenting adults who love each other to marry is bigotry, I’ve also failed to see an argument as to why my hypothetical incestuous marriage is not likewise bigotry.
Or what tomndebb said 
Sorry. Making up your own definitions for things in order to support your feelings is not persuasive.
Nothing in the definition of bigotry requires that the opposed object/event/phenomenon be immutable, so that fails.
As I have noted, there does not appear to be a universal “obstinate devotion” to opposition to SSM, so the use of bigot/bigotry in that context fails. Millions of people are changing their minds on the topic each year.
There are any number of reasons why a person might not support SSM, the primary one being an understanding of a word that has changed definition in a way that one does not understand, but which is contrary to one’s entire life experience with that word. (Notice that the support for or opposition to SSM charts very closely, (not congruently), to age. The longer one lived with an understanding that marriage identified a specific heterosexual relationship, the less likely one can easily change his or her views of what the word marriage means.)
Why you are going off on religion, I have no idea, as it tends to be irrelevant to this discussion. However, deciding that religious belief is a “choice” for the majority of people is just silly.