So far I agree with Der Trihs that I haven’t heard any argument against SSM that didn’t sound spontaneously concocted other than that based on bigoted reasoning. The one exception might be those who defer to church authority as required by church structure.
Der Trihs, you are a bigot when it comes to modern day religious groups and individuals. You generalize way too much and know too little. You may also be bigotted about the more emotive functions of the brain.
No, I understand that’s his point, but it’s silly.
Look, let’s say we have Grandma Fuddyduddy. She’s got nothing, at all, against gay people. Not even a litlte bit. But change scares the granny panties off of her and she’d really rather not have society change at all if she could help it. She’s never quiet gotten over rock and roll and the internet just freaks her right the fuck out. She doesn’t want to see gay marriage as the law of the land simply because she wants things to stay the way they are.
If we can identify, clearly, that the root of her feelings is an opposition to change, period, full stop… isn’t it absurd to then say that her opposition to change is really because she secretly hates gays?
Same for the people who believe that the semantic argument holds some sort of weight. Okay, so some people aren’t able to stretch their minds wide enough to deal with an evolving language and can’t cope with a word that has any more breadth or use than they’re used to. Does that mean that they must, by necessity, be basing that inability to cope with a dynamic language due to secret bigotry?
The point is that, sure, a non-zero percent of anti-SSM folks are bigots, and a bunch rationalize their bigotry through various channels to make it more palatable. But to act as if 100% of them do is just ignorant.
And at that point, we’re at a stage where we’re deliberately wielding willful ignorance in order to tar our political opponents, since reality is too messy and full of nuance (ironic, given the position that we’re arguing against, eh?)
Yes, I understand Der’s silly little semantic games.
However, the definition of “bigot” isn’t “one who doesn’t object to bigotry or who is demonst6rably not a bigot is, actually, a secret bigot.”
You want to claim that anti-SSM is inherently discriminatory? That its end result is to deny what should be seen as essential civil rights to American citizens? Sure, I’m with you. You want to claim that a non-zero percent of anti-SSM campaigners are doing so because they’re actually vile bigots who hate gays? Sure, that’s the truth.
Seriously, think for just a minute how absurd it is to claim that someone who, in your own words “love[s] gay people and think gay sex is a great idea and consider it a tragedy that same-sex marriages were historically forbidden” really “is intolerant and hateful of gay people.”
*
It makes no sense.*
And yet, not a single one of them shows intolerance to a group based.
See, this is the problem here. Some people have latched onto the fact that words like ‘bigot’ and ‘racist’ are about the most serious accusations you can throw at someone short of ‘child molester’ and ‘rapist’. So if someone does something like prefers the status quo, simply because they’re afraid of change, rather than calling them a neophobe or talking about how that view is irrational or what have you, some will just slap the label “bigot” on them and be done with it.
If people want to pretend that everybody who has reasons for opposing SSM that have nothing to do with gays, at all, or who have nothing against gays, at all, are really secret bigots… welp.
The fact that so many Dopers have gone off the rails here and cannot even conceive of the possibility that someone holds some reason for wanting to preserve the status quo other than hating gays is not one of the Dope’s better moments.
Did you just say that you were better at weaseling to avoid answering questions than Isamu? :dubious:
A couple of honest questions here.
1: Grandma Fuddyduddy. Does she exist? If she does exist how do we “identify, clearly” that her opposition to SSM is purely due to her fear of change? Did she/does she feel that way about racial segregation. And how do we know that simply sitting and talking to her won’t change her mind.
2:
That was a well placed end to the quote. Kimstu continued with “… if you uphold an anti-same-sex-marriage tradition for any reason, you’re condoning bigotry and thereby being a bigot.”
The important difference is that, despite what you feel for others, if you want to deny them rights equal to your own because you are afraid that it will cause you difficulty (whether actual or simply percieved). Then yes you are a bigot.
You can create all sorts of hypothetical situation, to prove your point. But you would do far better to cite an actual case that matches.
I mean you could say that Granny Madasasackfullofstarvingweasels is against SSM because the voices coming from her macrame set say they’ll sacrifice her son to the glory of Peter the Purple Pumpkin King. That doen’t make her a Bigot.
You know what you’ld be right. It doesn’t exactly prove your point though does it?
Grandma doesn’t necessarily hate gays, but she is clearly putting her personal feelings about a change that has absolutely no demonstrable effect on her life, ahead of their ability to secure fundamental rights, and live lives equal to everyone else.
Bigotry isn’t just about hating someone, it’s also about dehumanizing them to the point where their rights are irrelevant. Grandma basically doesn’t care that these people are denied a fundamental right, THAT is bigotry.
You doubt that there are people who are opposed to change because change scares them? And yes, there were quite a few people who were not racists but who were opposed to the speed of the civil rights movement and who wished that it would be implemented slowlly/in stages/whatever. It may be comfortable to call them all bigots, but a rational person is comfortable with nuance.
As for wanting a cite that some people oppose change because they reflexively oppose change, maybe I’ll look up some sort of psychological study, but probably not. Just like I wouldn’t really feel the need to find a study that described the wetness of water.
As for wanting a cite that some people argue that we shouldn’t have SSM because of the way things have always been and it would involve a change, I’d invite you to read just about any of the discussions on SSM in the public sphere during the last decade.
No, that was an irrelevant end of the quote and I addressed it. Condone has a definition, and to condone bigotry does not mean you are a bigot. It just doesn’t. Not unless we’re at the stage where we just make up definitons for words.
No, your’e a chichuaua. No, you’re a skyscraper. No, you’re a large sized SUV.
Can we please at least not make up definitions for words? Bigot does not mean “putting your own convenience above others’ equal rights.” There are plenty of perfectly valid adjectives which do describe that position, but bigotry is not one of them.
So call her irrational in her objection, neophobic in her clinging to the past, myopic in the scale of her vision, and so on, and so on, and so on.
We have a host of perfectly accurate adjectives to describe the logic that she’s using, why do we have to use the inaccurate label of “bigot”?
No, it is not.
Look, if we’re at the point where we can invent whatever definitions we want, then bigotry means ice cream sandwich and let’s be done with it.
Grandma doesn’t hate gays, she’s not intolerant of them, she’s convinced herself that marriage isn’t a civil right or a society that doesn’t change outweighs individuals’ happiness, or whatever.
If you find someone who honestly feels that gays aren’t human and they can be discriminated against freely because of that, then fine, call them a bigot. But pretending that every non-bigoted belief which has, as its result, a discriminatory outcome is in fact bigotry even though it’s non-bigotry?
We’re through the looking glass and using language to distort rather than describe.
So did the abolishment of slavery.
So your hypothetical grandma (why are there so many hypothetical people posed in this thread?) is opposed to all change. She likes things to stay the way they are. So when a bill is introduced to actually improve and extend her life at no cost to anyone else (indulge me here, and let’s call it the ‘golden years bill’), she is actively against it, simply because it’s different. In that case she’s probably mentally incapable of looking after herself, let alone anyone else.
Yet this is the example of the anti SSM people that you pose. People who are so old that they no longer know what is good for them or their community. Great example there. You really convinced me. :dubious:
Hi Jodi. There’s this country called Ireland- really a beautiful place. You’ve seen pictures.
Anyway, lots of killing there. In the name of Christianity. And not 1000 years ago either. Maybe you should look it up.
See, you’re equivocating between someone’s holding a bigoted opinion and their being slavering, Phelpsish gay-bashers. The second is not necessary for the first.
That same-gender marriage should not be allowed and different-gender marriage should be is a homophobic opinion. It doesn’t matter why and by whom it’s held. Certainly sweet old Granny Fuddy-duddy is much less homophobic than Gwendolyn Landolt, and the tactics we use with one should be different than the tactics we use with the other, and I know who I’d rather have a latte with, but it does us no good at all to pretend that an opinion is not homophobic when it is.
Hell, maybe if Granny Fuddy-duddy realized that what she was proposing was the continued oppression of a group of people, she’d change her mind. I’ve certainly seen it happen numerous times.
Two basic questions in this thread:
Are those opposed to SSM, for whatever reason, bigots. I say yes, until I hear an argument that is not based on bigotry. FTR, I’ve read all the arguments in this thread and I have yet to hear one that is not based on bigotry.
Is Der Tris a bigot? Well, perhaps, but there is a fundamental difference between Tris and anti-SSM bigots. Der Tris is merely ranting against the people he hates on a message board. The vast majority of the people he hates will never be affected by him, will never even know he exists. The anti-SSM bigots, OTOH, are doing real harm to the people they hate. I’m not aware of anything Der Tris has done to cause harm to those he hates. I’ve seen him *wish *harm on them, sure, but he’s never, AFAIK, done anything to harm anyone. So, is a bigot who just rants to those masochistic enough to read his posts as bad as the bigot who actively does deliberate harm to those he hates? I don’t think so.
I’m in an email argument with a California friend on this subject. He says that the entire purpose of the proposition is to re-define the word. Period. SS couples get everything – *everything *-- that het couples get, so there’s no difference. He says SSM supporters are being disingenuous because they won’t admit that they’re not losing anything. If find this particular argument endlessly amusing (if it didn’t suck).
However, if that were true, they wouldn’t distinguish between SS and het couples to begin with. It can’t be anything but homophobia that’s driving this. Us vs. Them lines in the sand. Lookie! They’re different!!!
My somewhat unrelated question: can het couples choose between civil union and marriage in California?
Our hypothetical Grandma certainly seems to feel that gays can be discriminated against freely, because she supports discriminating against them.
Not every non-bigoted belief, and not every discriminatory outcome. WRT SSM, however, those non-bigoted beliefs are minor, unspecified, and don’t actually seem to affect individuals in any meaningful way, and the discriminatory outcome denies a class of people a fundamental right, and equality.
In that case, it is damn well bigotry because these folks consider their miniscule unsubstantiated fears of change more important than the human rights of gay people.
In some ways, I dislike these people more than hardcore anti-gay bigots. They have some mild level of disapproval of SSM, nothing clearly identifiable, nothing that affects them personally and vote in huge blocks to pass things like Prop 8, and tear rights away from people. Then they get to go home and act like they’re decent and honest people because they “like” gay people, and have plenty of gay friends, and will still be friends with them after anonymously stabbing them in the back.
You might ask him how he feels about having bathrooms that say WHITE and COLORED on them. I mean, what’s the problem? They’re getting the same bathrooms and all.
intolerant person: somebody with strong opinions, especially on politics, religion, or ethnicity, who refuses to accept different views
a person obstinately or intolerantly devoted to his or her own opinions and prejudices ; especially : one who regards or treats the members of a group (as a racial or ethnic group) with hatred and intolerance
Dictionary.die.net
Bigot \Big"ot, n. [F. bigot a bigot or hypocrite, a name once
given to the Normans in France. Of unknown origin; possibly
akin to Sp. bigote a whisker; hombre de bigote a man of
spirit and vigor; cf. It. s-bigottire to terrify, to appall.
Wedgwood and others maintain that bigot is from the same
source as Beguine, Beghard.]
A hypocrite; esp., a superstitious hypocrite. [Obs.]
A person who regards his own faith and views in matters of
religion as unquestionably right, and any belief or
opinion opposed to or differing from them as unreasonable
or wicked. In an extended sense, a person who is
intolerant of opinions which conflict with his own, as in
politics or morals; one obstinately and blindly devoted to
his own church, party, belief, or opinion.
All bolding mine.
What I would like to point out is that the term bigot covers a wider range of opinions than it used to. Hell it apparently used be be the French term for the Normans. And I don’t think any of us here thought that was what DT meant.
I have thought more on what you are saying Finnagain, and I understand where you are coming from. So yes DT chose a word that in the view of some has a far more specific frame of reference. IMO it also helps to muddy the waters even more when many of the “fear of change” brigade appear to be using it as a smokescreen for their real opposition to SSM or whatever comes along next.
And on review, yes I do realise that taken at it’s widest we could all be labelled bigots on one topic or another 
Thank you! I was looking for an example but couldn’t come up with the perfect one. This is it.
From the GD thread:
I get it now. He’s a fucking troll.
I can do hypotheticals too!
See, I can show that vegetarians shouldn’t have any problem eating cows.
Consider that if cows were made of turnip, they would be perfectly okay for vegetarians to eat.
My position is completely unassailable. Because it’s hypothetical.
Let me see if I’ve got this straight. You can’t accuse someone expressing bigoted thoughts - ie. opposing SSM. - of being a bigot, because then you are showing intolerance to someone else yourself?
Hi, Not Shirley. There’s actually not lots of killing in Ireland these days, thank God. There’s also a lot of political and nationalistic reasons for The Troubles that can’t be distilled down to “killing in the name of Christianity.” It’s a very complicated issue. Maybe you should look it up.