You sound like one o’ them thar hippies. Are you one o’ them hippies? 
Taking such a “compromise” will make the conflict take LONGER. Possibly generations longer, as segregation did; that’s part of why such “compromises” are made. In reality, they are just writing prejudice into law. They make progress harder, not easier. It wasn’t the compromisers who won civil rights for blacks, or women.
No, you are talking about taking a ghetto version of marriage and stalling. Of NOT going on.
And not coincidentally, now that thread is full of people insisting that we just have to understand why the opponents think how they do, and we aren’t allowed to point out that we already know. It’s full of people saying things like “they say we are all bigoted”, and the the other side not being allowed to say “because we think you ARE ! Give me a non-bigoted reason !”. It means people can’t say they disapprove of bigotry, since that amounts to an admission that all the other side has going for it IS bigotry.
Yeah, those blacks shouldn’t rile people up complaining about separate water fountains.
That’ll be of some limited comfort when the Nazi jackboot slams down on your neck.
Yeah, that’s right, I Godwinned.
That’s pretty hateful and ignorant in and of itself.
Well. I wasn’t at Woodstock, or anything. But I did give a bunch of brown barrels to a guy who was going! You know, come to think of it, I never did hear how that turned out…
Oh ? And if someone doesn’t give people who regard blacks as subhuman the “benefit of the doubt”, then are they being “hateful and ignorant” too ?
The anti SSM side simply has no valid arguments.
In answer to the OP, statistics say that there very well might be a few people opposed to SSM that are not bigots. I can envision someone being opposed to it simply becuase they are a moron and just go with what they’ve heard from others.
With that said, all of the arguments against it that I’ve heard so far all smack of prejudice in one flavor or another.
P.S. 5 states out of 50, and my own straight marrage doesn’t feel lessened at all (in response to the ever popular “Letting them in would degrade the whole concept of marriage!” argument).
There are no valid arguments for the anti-vaccination movement, either, but we will make more progress by engagement and persuasion than by screaming that they are pro-smallpox.
I feel that would depend on what the antivax folks are trying to do with their views. If they’re just opposed to it as a private opinion, that’s one thing. If they’re out there with multimillion-dollar campaigns to legally deny people access to vaccinations, I’m gonna break out the “you’re pro-smallpox” chants.
That’s because they AREN’T pro-smallpox. The anti SSMers are, however bigots, motivated by malice towards homosexuals.
Nobody cares what the fuck I say so I’m free to spout my useless opinion with abandon.
Yes, you are indeed a bigot if you oppose marriage to couples of the same sex . Why? Because they they want to be married. There is no other reason that is needed to be heard. If you are going to counter this with someone being married to their goat or even equating this with plural marriage, no one has lobbied for that. Get back to me when society at large wants to marry their pet.
When you can come up with a reason why my marriage and your marriage will suffer from from some homos taking the same vows then I willl take your views into consideration.
It may not be true, but the ideology of the group overrides that of the individual, and whether you are a good religious person or not, if your group adopts any display of exclusivity, you are as guilty as any of them unless you leave or try to change the group-think.
There are potential arguments, at least - concerns about potentially toxic additives and adverse reactions - that can be supported by statistical analysis. Granted, the antivaxers don’t do this, relying on anecdotal evidence and pseudoscience, but they hypothetically could.
I’ve never seen the anti-SSM argument even approach this potential. The arguments consists of things that are incorrect (homosexuals can’t reproduce), inconsistent (nonreproducing heterosexuals are okay, though), unprovable (homosexuals can’t possibly form an emotional bond comparable to heterosexuals), or biblical (God said it’s wrong).
Y’know, I think the answer to this is obvious, and I’m not really inclined to indulge the sort of person who quotes what I say but apparently doesn’t read it, much less a person who is so far up on their fucking high horse as to wish death on me. But neither do I want to give you an excuse to construe your lack of reading comprehension as evasiveness on my part, so . . . .
No. Not just no, but fuck no.
Then you think wrong. Your position was ambiguous.
This:
Plus this:
equals 
So even though I explained that “extinct” did not mean “dead,” and gave an example of others who are extinct but not dead, I was “wishing death on” you. Oh, and also,** I **can’t read for comprehension. Comedy gold, Jerry!
Then I misunderstood. I’m sorry.
I’m just curious how being far up on a high horse means wishing death on someone, unless it involves threatening to drop things on them.
From what I’ve seen, aside from the very religious and those who truly hate, most who are against it are against it not for any of these reasons, but simply because they are against any major social change.
These are the same people who, once gay marriage is in place (as it is here), cease to oppose it. In Canada gay marriage is now a non-issue, except for a fringe. This does not mean that the almost half of the population who opposed it initially used to be gay-hating bigots but have since seen the light. Those who are truly motivated by bigotry oppose it still, but are a small minority.
Which is why I strongly disagree with the OP. Disapproving of change (or rather putting a very high onus on deciding that change is a good rather than a bad thing) isn’t bigotry, it is merely social conservatism, which in spite of the opinions of many on this board is not the same thing.
But what that religious institution says will have no impact on you. They can say that marriage consists only of a man and a woman, or indeed any criteria they so select; that doesn’t mean they “own” the word, and that you cannot use it differently. We can do whatever we want and call it marriage, if we want; let alone if we marry a person of the same sex, we could call running a mile “marriage” if we wanted. You can get married now if you should so wish. The problem is that the government won’t recognise it - if they did, then who cares what Johnny Churchman says?
Yes, but it’s social conservatism with no regard for the unhappiness and suffering the ban creates. There may be a distinction in theory between a bad person and a good person who just does bad things, but in practice, not so much. The net effect is the bad thing gets done and the suffering continues.
In any case, I don’t personally care for the bigot label simply it’s vague. I’d much rather call someone an idiot or a liar or a troll - something more personal and demonstrable.
My point is that if you really want to move a particular social change forward (rather than just blow steam), it is better to really understand what actually motivates your opponents and craft your response accordingly.
Simply calling people bigots, idiots, liars or trolls when they oppose what you consider a necessary change isn’t very convincing - that only plays well with people who already agree with you. It is rare that a person can be insulted into agreeing with your position, whether the insults are true or not (and in this case they very often are not).