Not really a Pit as such, but tomndebb ruled out using the term “bigot” to refer to SSM opponents in the thread linked to this, and then made a statement that I can only answer using the forbidden word.
The answer I may make here and not there is this; the connection between the two groups is that both are bigots. “Those who oppose SSM” and “people who oppose SSM out of bigotry” are identical groups, because there is no other reason to oppose it. The excuses may differ, but it’s all bigotry. When I say “those who oppose SSM”, that is a valid grouping and not a “broad brush” because their reasons are all fundamentally the same. Even if you refuse to let me or others say so.
If I said “everyone who opposes interracial marriage is a bigot” I doubt you’d take the same position somehow. But we aren’t quite at the point yet where it’s permissible to admit that the other side has no ground to stand on when it comes to homosexuality, apparently.
Must be nice to live in a binary world, although I would find it constricting.
And the reason that the word “bigot” was ruled out of order in that thread was that it was right on the edge of becoming nothing more than name-calling.
I realize that there is a tendency among some people to simply declare their opponents “bigots” as though that actually answered any questions, (when it actually raises far more for those with an interest in fighting ignorance), but all it does in a debate is declare one side “bad” with no explanation while demonstrating that the name-callers are uninterested in fighting their own ignorance regarding motives. ::: shrug :::
Carry on.
Oh, and by the way, basically everything magellan and mswas have said in the last couple of threads is complete and utter bullshit, and they are being intellectually dishonest in pushing the same tired arguments that have been debunked a dozen times before.
The first half also does NOT describe those like mswas, who favors SSM but wants a more logically consistent reasoning in support.
The second half… does not describe those who oppose SSM on financial grounds, among others.
Are people who oppose SSM shortsighted? I certainly think so.
Are they all, to a man, uniformly motivated by intolerance and hate? Of course not.
But you knew that already, didn’t you?
And if you didn’t, then my GOODNESS, man, but how do you function?
What a load of rot. Perhaps you need to get a dictionary and look up the meaning of the word “bigot”.
No, they are not. As has already been pointed out to you. The fundamental reasons range from the purely semantic to the homophobic to those based on cultural sensitivities to those based on religion.
I certainly would take the same position. Many people opposed, and probably still do oppose, interracial marriage because of reasons based on the best science of the day, based on religious doctrine, based on legal principles and numeorus others.
Saying that they were or are all bigots is bullshit. Most, probably today. All? Not a chance.
We aren’t at that stage when it comes to race either. You apparently don’t comprehend te difference between " no ground to stand" and “insufficient grounds to stand on”. There are numerous valid arguments for opposition to same sex marriage, just as there are numeorus vlaid arguments for opposition to smoking. It’s just that the majority don’t feel they are sufficient to prevent people making a free choice.
The problem arises when the other side IS bigoted. Pretending that there is no unifying factor - unjustified bigotry - in all proponents of a position that is only held because of bigotry won’t make grouping those people together invalid. The real problem here is that you want everyone to ignore the obvious, and that makes talking about this issue awkward and hands an unjustified advantage to the bigots.
Dude, given your record here, you’re about the last person whose word I’d take on who is or isn’t a bigot. And I say that even though I acknowledge that pretty much all the arguments I’ve heard in opposition to same-sex marriage seem rather weak and may indeed come down to bigotry.
As for your title, it’s perfectly possible to be honest in GD without insulting whole classes of people. That you don’t appear to have the wit to figure out how to do so is no one else’s problem.
Really. My position is that I oppose government-sanctioned gay marriage because I believe marriage should be a religious or spiritual union the government has no business meddling in, while civil unions should be state-sanctioned and open to all on an equal basis. If your religion only allows left=handed blonde Albanians to marry, that’s your business, not mine, and certainly not the government’s.
Thus, I would be opposed to state-sponsored gay marriage on the grounds that I would be opposed to state-sponsor of ANY marriage. This is “all things being equal,” which of course they are not. As they stand now, marriage is state-sponsored and the arguments for extending the privilege to some and not to others, are unpersuasive to say the least. But this still stands as at least a hypothetical rationale to oppose gay marriage that is not based on bigotry.
But that’s not “opposition to gay marriage”. That’s opposition to state sanctioned marriage in general, which happens to include gay marriage. You might as well call support for the income tax “support for a tax on gays” because gays pay it too.
Ding, ding. Ding, ding.
Medication time. Medication time.
Ding, ding.
Please stop all basket weaving, finger painting, and discussions with Napoleon and proceed to the dispensary.
Ding, ding.
So could the second half if you were looking at a group like, say, religious people. Or conservatives. Or ~gasp!~ religious conservatives.
P.S. Dude, Der, Magellan’s not trolling you. He’s pointing out that your bigoted rantings sound like the paranoid, irrational lunacy of a raving nutbar who sees the world as a gigantic comic book with himself as the Hero and those who disagree with him as Villains.
But don’t you think this is (at least sometimes, possibly most times) used as a smokescreen? Perhaps not in your case. But where were all these other people who oppose all state-sanctioned marriage before gay marriage came up as an issue?
Admittedly there may have been a huge groundswell of opposition to the government’s role in marriage prior to the gay marriage thing, and I’m just woefully ignorant of it. (I don’t doubt there’s a lot I’m ignorant of, to be sure!) I don’t rule it out, but … I dunno. Just seems like one helluva coincidence that all these folks woke up suddenly and vocalized just how awful the government’s role in “marriage” is only once the boys started marrying boys and the girls started marrying girls.
So barring evidence that “hating all government intrusion in marriage” has always been a movement – and I’m fully willing to be convinced here – I too suspect that lying beneath the distaste is unconscious bigotry: state-sanctioned marriage is obviously wrong because now the gays wanna do it and the government may want to let them. Which means to me, Der Trihs is righter than he is wrong, at least on this particular issue.
I agree that they are bigots and they will find themelves on the wrong side of history. I’m sure there were a lot of opponents to desegregation who didn’t think they were bigots, but they were.
I believe that if a law was passed that allowed one day a year to be set aside for the killing of anyone who disagreed with you it would be the one day a year you would come out of your basement and start shooting.
That’s how insane I think you are. Honestly.
It’s funny that as soon as many bigots are pressed on their bigotry, they ask, gee, does that mean we have to be okay with Nazis? (Only slightly less awesome than asking that, is asking if bigotry is bad, don’t we then have to be cool with bigots themselves lest we becomes bigots against bigotry?)
Yes Der, you’re a bigot even if you are ‘only’ bigoted against people who commit the sin of thinking differently than you. You are no different from high school bullies who decide to torment ‘nerds’. After all, they’re not bigots since reading fantasy and sci fi is a choice, not like being black. Fucking nerds, eh, eh?
And no, see, we’re allowed to object to abhorrent behavior, like supporting genocide. But having the same reaction to, say, people who believe that society is best when there’s little government assistance, or that faith makes their lives better? Well, that makes you an asshole, a bigot, and someone unable to tell the difference between Quakers and Nazis.
You know, a frothing loon.
P.S. Good use of the traditional moron’s attack on cultural pluralism “If we have to cleave to tolerance than that means we have to tolerate intolerance. Stupid libruls, either you enjoy Nazism or you are intellectually dishonest if you ask me not to be a bigot.” See? You are what you hate. but you’re too hate crazed by your comic-book worldview to realize it.
You use the same arguments that justify bigotry and high school bullying. Not really surprising, as you’re about as introspective as any other crazy person.