Bigots are not necessarily genocidally racist, this is true. But bigots do argue that certain sections of the population should not enjoy completely equal rights based on their ethnicity, creed, religion, or (in this case) sexual orientation. Advocating “a lesser form of union” for gays and lesbians is bigotry.
Der, I agree with you 100% in your argument. Honestly it’s not a subject I care to debate, because one might as well debate gravity. There is no argument that supports “traditional” marriage yet opposes same sex marriage that is not either outright bigotry, or outright delusional.
A few quick clarifications for the sock-o-rocks dumb:
Do you deny that it allows for a fuller human experience. Do you deny that part of our ability, indeed part of our reason for being here is procreation? If so, you are an idiot. In fact, either way, you are an idiot.
False. the experience is fully human, but it does not allow the human experience to the fullest. Straights that can’t or choose to not have children also do not experience as full a range of what it means to be a human on the planet.
Do you deny that it does? If so, you are an idiot. Have you ever seen a bell curve? Is this a whoosh?
Being a product of birth would make it natural. But still normal, not representative of the norm. Wow. I don’t think a person come be as dumb or as dense as you.
How dare I state facts! How dare I say that heterosexuality is the the norm?!! The gall!!!
Wow, you rally are an idiot. Heterosexuality IS the norm. Don’t take my word for it, go look t a bell curve. Unbelievable.
I can’t tell if dishonesty or imbecility is you strong suit. Which would you go with?
I’ll check back in the Am to see what your answer is.
Hey magellan. Wanna post a single reason why SSM will be negative to society?
You totally missed th epoin tof the post you quoted. The point was that you can’t validly compare opposition to SSM with the holocaust. Nothing more.
Equivocate much?
Bigots do argue that certain sections of the population should not enjoy completely equal rights based on their ethnicity, creed, religion but (and this is the bit you need to pay attention to) so do non bigots.
Otherwise you are arguing that pretty much every single US citizen is a bigot because they all argue that certain sections of the world’s population shouldn’t enjoy the right to live and work in the USA.
To claim that is bigotry is absurd. Americans certainly argues that certain sections of the population should not enjoy completely equal rights based on their ethnicity. So by your equivocating argument we need to accept that Americans are bigots.
Of cours ein the real world the position isn’t bigoted because it is based on arguments that don’t presume any superiority of US citizens. It’s based on all sorts of security and sociological and economic arguments. Not on an assumption of superiority.
Similarly people can oppose gay marriage on all sorts of sociological and economic arguments without being bigoted.
So why is advocating a lesser form of residence for people of non-US ethnicity not a form of bigotry? Hmm?
Could it be because it’s not based on sociological and economic arguments rather than any assumption of superiority?
Second try:
Such as?
Can you really not think of one? Given this thread and the events of the last couple of years one at least seems obvious.
Gay marriage leads to social conflict. That’s a negative to society.
Maybe you can argue that it shouldn’t, but clearly it does. Maybe you can argue that the conflict generated is less than the good, so it’s an overall positive, but that doesn’t alter the fact that social conflict exists and in itself a negative to society.
So you are admitting you are fool and not worthy of repect are you? Because that was the condition for the retsof the list?
Not that i wa stalking to you in the first place. I love the way this works. Someone says that ther isn’t a single justification for X. Then when I post the reason with an in depth reply you post a drive by 4 word post demanding more reaosns. You odnt; even have th ecourtesy to say whether you accept the given reason or even what your position is.
Give me an in depth statement of your position as it relates to mine and I might spend the time repsonding to you.
I know from experience that reposnding to drive by 4 word posts is just a waste of time and rapidly becomes frustrating.
Not having gay marriage leads to social conflict. More in fact. So it makes more sense to get it over with. So sorry, please try again.
A lot of people respect me. From where I sit it looks like you’re the fool. Still can’t come up with one? 
If the argument draws on bigotry for justification, then the argument is bigoted. Essentially it’s saying “Bigotry against interracial marriages is OK because people on both sides are bigoted.” Classic tautology.
I don’t have any problem with the claim that people who want to deny the benefits and privileges of marriage to a certain portion of the community are bigots. None at all. I don’t care how they try to justify it. It’s bigotry to me.
Yep, you’re precisely the type of fool I thought you were. And like all fools when you ask a stupid question that destoys your position you seek tomove the goal posts.
I adressed this in the very post you quoted.
You can argue all you like that not having gay marriage leads to more social conflict so the net effect is positive. Doesn’t change the fact that gay marriage leads to social conflict which is a negative.
But since you’ve proven that you have no intention of or ability to engage in reasoned discussion I think I can safely ignore you. My rep on this board is solid. You’re just another drive by whose name I don’t even recognise.
In other words you’re unable to come up with a non-bigotry argument?
My position is simple. I strongly believe in equal rights. To deny a segment of the population a right requires a strong reason. There has been no such reason presented.
Simple enough for you to follow?
You’re deflecting. Please give one reason that isn’t rooted in bigotry against SSM.
I’m living proof of the falsity of the bolded part of statement. And it is bigotry.
Last I checked, US citizenship is a nationality, not an ethnicity.
Yes it is. But not in the way you might imagine it to be.
BTW - continually and relentlessly pointing out how stupid, idiotic and incapable of reason other posters are, does not make you look as smart as you probably think it does.
Your analogy assumes equal treatment under the law for gays is as Iraq war is to Americans. Surely you can see the flaw in that right? There isn’t one credible threat gay marriage poses so the only reasons left are “I don’t like it, I want my tastes forced on other people”, and “fuck freedom of religion, I want my religious views forced on other people”.
Some people have religious objections to Buddhism being practiced in their town. Should we ban that to? Let’s put this notion that religion is a valid objection to SSM marriage to pasture. Unlike the Iraqi war, freedom of religion is an American guarantee and a necessity in our government by it’s very definitions.
Shoot man go for it if you like. I stand by my words. There’s been no demonstrable harm from SSM. There’s no solid reason to oppose it. What’s left?
Well that’s interesting. I guess I could see that idea in the past, when people were generally more ignorant about things. That’s actually kind of thought provoking. The thing is though I’ve never had any trouble like that because stuff like that isn’t an issue anymore like it was. I’m American and I have American culture. My close friends are white, black, and hispanic. The first girl I made out with is from Peru. There’s a very white girl in english composition who I think likes me. I’ve never gotten any trouble from the white half of my family.
Race isn’t an issue so much these days preciously because people are stopping making it an issue. I’ll concede in the past though that could be a legitimate concern. So not all of them were bigots. Modern day America though. No excuse. Mixed race couples and kids do fine.
Just for fun I’ll dispprove this, because it’s so easy.
Person X does not want to see children hurt. She believes that children of marriages beween race A and Race B are not welcomed into either parents culture. She believes that not being welcomed into any culture hurts children.
If perosn X’s argument is bigoted as you claim then tell me: what race is person X and which group is she bigoted against?
The fact that you can not tell me proves that the argument itself is not inherently bigoted.
As for your claim that the argument " draws on bigotry for justification", what does that even mean? It’s total non sequitur.
That’s irrelevant. The point is that the argument against interracial marriage is ultimately based on bigotry, because the reason that children of interracial marriages were unwelcome was because of bigotry in either or both of the races against people in the other race.
Therefore, that argument is fundamentally bigoted, and Person X, although she herself may not have any specific racial bias for or against Race A or Race B, is endorsing bigotry by espousing it.
According to the Der Trihs absolutist view, AFAICT, letting any consideration tip the scales against rejecting arguments based on bigotry counts as endorsing bigotry, and consequently being a bigot. This view may be too draconian to be really meaningful, but ISTM that it’s not per se illogical.