As long as we accept that some people sincerely believe in a god, then being anti-something because their god said it was prohibited would be a non-bigoted reason. From a secular standpoint every religion is a basket of nuttry, but clearly the followers of the religion take the directives as things to be followed solely because their god dictated it rather than for logical reasons. As an example, some religions prohibit work on certain days, and the followers go through great personal inconvenience to adhere to that restriction. I’m sure many followers of the religion would prefer that restriction on work didn’t exist, but they are anti-work on certain days because their god said so rather than because they themselves feel there is a reason for that restriction. If their god also said that same sex relationships were prohibited, then they would likely be against SSM because they are following their god’s directive rather than because it was their personal decision. They personally may be in support of it, but they may be against it because they don’t want to anger their god. A secular person may label that person a bigot, but the origin of the religious person’s opposition is because of a faithful compliance to their god rather than because they personally are against it.
Absolutely.
And this is a great case where calling them (or their argument) bigoted is counter-productive if you want to persuade them.
I disagree.
If you’re from a bigoted family and you retain those views, you’re still a bigot.
If at your school, We didn’t have any of those people, you’re still a bigot.
If your town was a sundown town and you’re proud of that, you’re still a bigot.
If your region waves confederate flags and you yee-haw it up with them, you’re still a bigot.
If your political party is bigoted, and you support their bigoted stance, you’re still a bigot.
But we give religion a pass?
If you’re not in that religion then you view that religion through your own biases. I think it’s fine to say the behavior is bigoted, but that doesn’t necessarily mean the person is bigoted. They may be just following their religion.
Another example is how Abraham was going to sacrifice his son because God commanded him. From the outside we would call Abraham a child killer or something, but Abraham’s motivation was being a good servant to God. I would assume he had no desire to kill his child and seems like he was filled with anguish, but he couldn’t disobey God. If someone is so devoted to their religion that they are willing to kill their child, I have no doubt they would blindly follow whatever other directives that religion put forth regardless of their own personal feelings about the directive.
One thing about religion is that it’s the will of the creator of the universe rather than just the opinion of some random guy. A god has total power over the universe and has the power to inflict any hardship upon anyone. Not following the god’s directive may mean your farms don’t produce, your child gets brain cancer, you spend eternity in hell, etc. Not obeying a god comes with potentially huge negative consequences. Not wanting to anger the god is more important than your own personal desires. In that way, it’s different than a KKK follower who has made a personal choice to be part of a bigoted group.
But if they choose to keep that particular provision, while ignoring others which their god also provided, that looks a lot less neutral.
Is it? It’s really just the opinion of the pastor (with the backing of whatever board the church has).
I know that people can’t always “just find another church” because of various social, familial, or economic ties, but if you go along to get along, you’re guilty of the group’s sins. Maybe more guilty because in your heart you knew better.
Problem with that is:
Suppose somebody’s position is:
Members of X racial/ethnic group of humans are all (or all with very few exceptions) short on mental capacity, childlike, incapable of long-term planning, very bad at abstract thought. We should of course be kind to them and treat them well; but there’s no sense in offering them advanced education, and it would be very bad for society to let them take jobs requiring much of any independent thought. They should each be appointed guardians from a different racial/ethnic group, who can make sure that they’re fed and housed, and decide what work is suitable for the particular individual to do.
Positing that the person who holds this position genuinely holds no animus towards the members of the group they’re so describing and making societal recommendations about: is it not still a bigoted position?
Yeah, this would be one aspect that I would use to decide if the person was bigoted or just blindly following their religion. If someone picks and chooses what parts of their religion to follow based on their personal preferences, then that person is likely a bigot. But if the person strictly follows all aspects of the religion, even the inconvenient parts, then I’m more likely to think they are just doing whatever their god commands because their god commanded it.
Out of curiosity: let’s say that someone does whatever their god commands, because their god commands it — which, per this thread, includes opposing same-sex marriage.
And let’s say that someone else who opposes same-sex marriage cheerfully explains that, oh, hey, they don’t believe in a god or gods; it’s just that some guy pays them to do so. Nothing personal; they’ve just concluded that they make more money opposing it than they would if they came out in favor of it, and so they — do that.
Would you care that they’re just doing it to make a buck? Why or why not?
Nevermind all that love and redemption stuff, if they’re not following the simplest of god’s direct commands to
Kill Pagans
Kill gays
Kill Seamus the bridge builder
Kill their teenage children
then they can’t really be said to be devout.
I suppose that’s another a non-bigoted reason to be anti-SSM: I can make more money if SSM is not allowed. Or a politician realizing that the path to election is being anti-SSM. Politicians often support causes depending on what gets them elected rather than what they believe. I certainly think that’s wrong, but I would think they were doing it for personal gain rather than because they are a bigot.
The problem with your hypothetical is that I cannot imagine such a scenario. As far as I know, there is no such ethnic group.
If you substitute ”someone with Downs Syndrome” it makes more sense.
Would it be bigoted to assign someone a guardian to someone with Downs? Would it demonstrate animus?
Are you that oblivious that you do not see that this is exactly how White people have regarded Africans, Native Americans and even Asians for much of history?
Then if you follow that particular god and the laws you claim he has set for you, then don’t get gay married. Done.
If you force your beliefs on others, and require that they follow your god’s law, then that’s a whole different story.
That sounds bigoted to me. What makes you think I am oblivious?
You are not fooling anyone.
I’m not sure why this is targeted at me. I did not make this argument.
I have no idea what this means.
Still not fooling anyone.
And if they don’t think that they should work on that day, that is fine.
If they think that everyone should be closed on that day, that’s a different story.
And if they don’t want to get gay married, that is fine.
No, the secular person would not label them a bigot. Not unless the religious person attempted to impose their beliefs on others.