I was under the impression that we were having a discussion about same-sex marriage that you invited me to. I thought perhaps that your post pertained to the discussion. Perhaps I was mistaken.
FOAF story, take with an appropriate quantity of salt: I knew a guy who knew a gay guy who was really hoping against hope that SSM wouldn’t be legalized, because he knew his boyfriend wanted to get married, but he didn’t. So I guess there’s that. And hey, they say homophobes turn out to be gay more often than the population average…
I do believe it’s possible to have bigoted views, including opposing SSM, without holding any particular animus toward the people who would be negatively impacted by your views. It could be a matter of ignorance or apathy, at least relative to the thing you perceive to be in conflict with those human rights you oppose. So sure, you could think gay people are great, you just don’t want them getting married. That doesn’t make your views not bigoted.
I would… yep, I’d have to count that one as both non-bigoted and anti-SSM. Hilarious, though.
Wouldn’t be the first time.
Well, the second definition doesn’t require an unreasonable belief, only an obstinate one. But I imagine this is where agreement will become difficult; because what two people see as “reasonable” can definitely differ. And denying parity to somebody based on some intrinsic part of themselves is something that I would see as unreasonable, and you apparently, do not agree (in this context).
Ha, that’s probably the absolute perfect example of being against SSM without bigotry; because he was against it in his particular case.
Do you have a definition of ‘bigoted’ to share to help me understand this perspective?
MW:
Bigoted adjective
blindly devoted to some creed, opinion, or practice
having or showing an attitude of hatred or intolerance toward the members of a particular group (such as a racial or ethnic group)
Both required that the prejudice be directed at a person or group. Where, in my argument, was the prejudice directed at a person or group?
So, how do we resolve this impasse?
Side note: you characterised the argument as being about denying parity (that’s not the argument I made) and suggested that I oppose parity (I have said nothing to suggest such a thing). But I’ll let those pass because I feel we are making progress on the definition front.
I propose that dismissing someone (or an argument) as bigoted is not the best way to engage them (which is how this discussion began) or to persuade them that your argument is correct.
And which aspect of this definition does this fall under?
you could think gay people are great, you just don’t want them getting married.
I’m done.
Just when we were getting somewhere.
Group A is not allowed to do thing that Group B can do for reasons.
Regardless of what is substituted into the italicized portions, how is that not prejudice against Group A? And how is that not denying parity to Group A as well?
The argument is that God instituted marriage as an institution for one man and one woman. It doesn’t mention groups at all.
We are apparently not even having the same conversation at this point.
From my perspective, what you just said is:
Group A is not allowed to do thing that Group B can do for reasons because God instituted marriage as an institution for one man and one woman.
(To clarify further: Same-sex couples are not allowed to get married because God instituted marriage as an institution for one man and one woman.)
General reminder, attack the post and not the poster.
I’m not going to mod this thread but some flags are happening and another GD mod will address them.
I’m glad you clarified because I would never have made that leap. It’s daring!
Are they? to the point of denying civil marriages, performed by the state? That doesn’t require any church involvement at all, any more than when two people get married in some other religious institution.
I can see the argument that the Church says “no” in the Church’s own theology, but on what basis do Catholic believers have to oppose two non-Catholics getting married elsewhere?
Ha, snark acceptable; I just didn’t like leaving it where I did.
I covered that one. That particular bit of my argument was about church marriages, not civil marriages.
What? Why is the argument “our hetero marriage is divinely blessed by God but your filthy gay marriage is an abomination before the Lord” not bigoted? Of COURSE that’s a bigoted argument. I’m shocked that anyone would argue it isn’t.
Is the argument “I was made in God’s image, while you were made in God’s image as well but then cursed with the sign of Ham and so deserve to be my slave” bigoted? It was a sincerely held belief by thousands of Christians. Does their faith make it non bigoted?