And absence of bigotry is absence of bigotry. See, I can make ridiculously obvious and irrelevant statements too.
Okay, thanks. I was just wondering.
Either way, it’s crazy. I mean, I don’t care if people like to beat off while watching My Little Pony-as long as they don’t do it in the streets and scare the horses.
(I hope no one thinks I’m saying GLB shouldn’t show affection in public. I just mean, whatever goes on between two consenting adults in the privacy of their own home…etc)
How about this: not recognizing same-sex marriage is discrimination which is based upon bigotry. Does that work for you?
bated breath
Nope. I learned everything I know about Australia from commercials for Foster’s. 
I don’t see what you’re saying at all, I don’t see why the road we’re not headed on should lead anywhere, and, speaking as a Christian mind you, I’m sick of hearing that if there is no God, it means that there is no reason to live a moral life. Very few athieists believe that, so why do so many Christians?
'Course. my personal faith and morality is not based on the reward system anyway.
The Georgia statute in question in Bowers did not specify homosexual sodomy, and yet the Supreme Court acted as if it did. By pretending that the case was about “the right to engage in homosexual” acts, they could sidestep the privacy issues. Burger’s concurrence in that case is really something:
I’m probably not gay, so I mostly don’t care. I will note that you may be presuming too much with this S Africa stuff. Sure, the law says that gay couples are treated as regular couples, but how are they treated by the citizens? Will the government actually take steps to destroy discrimination by enforcing laws, or will they be content to sit back and say “hey we love gays, we have a law.”
South Africa is the most progressive country in Africa when it comes to Homosexuals. They even had gay pride marches since 1990 (during the apartheid). One only needs to take a look accross the continent at Egypt to see how Homosexuals are normaly treated.
That’s kind of distressing.
I seem to recall that here in the UK that is the case, with a maximum sentence of life - No, I can’t provide a cite, just going on memory. The gist is that while anti-homosexuality laws were repealed in the 1960’s, the sodomy laws still exist for heterosexuals.
Uh, no I don’t. Are you trying to say that gay people shouldn’t be allowed our civil rights in the USA or elsewhere?
Well, there is a spill-over effect.
I’m “out” where I work, and always have been.
This means if any of my coworkers have homophobic ideas, I can discuss them with them. I can challenge myths and misconceptions, etc.
I’m not sure I would be able to do that if I didn’t live in a country with constitutional protections, and in a province where on-the-job discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation was not illegal. I doubt I would be “out,” and I doubt I’d have the courage to defend “those people” for fear someone would figure out I’m gay.
As the legal distinctions vanish, addressing the social prejudices gets easier and easier.
As someone who works for a South African company, and probably one of the few who has actually been there…
South Africa IS progressing along various socio-political lines, but it is far from being progressive.
Sure, they recognize same-sex marriages, but where was that sentiment the last time I was there when a group of 'good ‘ol boys’ decided that the owner of a car was an “AIDS fucker” and proceeded to piss on his car in front of a whole restaurant of people? Classy…
That said, I do think that SA has the ability to out-progress the USA in some areas. They know they have problems, and they even work to fix some of them (others, no…). Racial relations are on the mend, but it will take time. The other social problems will take time as well. But they are trying.
On the other hand, when do you think a black person (let alone man) will become the President of the USA? Or someone infected with AIDS? Or when will homosexuality become widely accepted? My bet is with SA on these (yeah, I know they already have a black president…), because they are in a period of upheaval and change. The US isn’t, we’ve stalled on many of these issues. In 10 years they have outpaced us in a few regards. Don’t be surprised if they keep doing it for the next decade.
They just need to get rid of that idiot Mbeki…What a fuckup.
I’d like to round this out and finish it, but I can’t, I must go-
Take care-
-Tcat
Why do you feel it is absurd to link discrimination and bigotry?
Stuff and nonsense. First of all, you may not have realized this, and you probably didn’t mean it, but you just called every atheist on the board a sociopath. If I don’t believe in God, then there’s absolutely nothing to keep me from running across the street and stabbing my neighbor to death with a Bic ball-point pen for mowing his lawn at six A.M. Right?
Wrong. I don’t need a mythical, ephemeral father figure to make me feel guilty for hurting other people. My very solid, actually-exsisting father (and mom, too, of course) did that already. If I murdered my neighbor, I’d be consumed by guilt over what I did to him, to his family, to my family, who would be almost as devastated. This, despite the fact that I was raised as an atheist, that I’ve never attended a church service that didn’t involve someone getting married or buried, that I have never had any religious instruction beyond what I’ve sought out for myself out of curiosity. A belief in God is not a prerequisite for human empathy. I would argue that it hinders as much as helps, as it is yet one more way to factionalize ourselves, to look at other people and say, “He’s a Jew, he’s different,” instead of “He’s a human, like me.” But that’s a different thread.
I will say, however, that the Bible does contain everything you need for a fully functional moral code: “Do unto others as you would have them do unto you.” Really, that’s all you need. Don’t commit murder, because you don’t want to be murdered yourself. Don’t steal, because you don’t want other people to take your stuff. Don’t lie, because you want people to be honest to you. Don’t discriminate, because you don’t want to be discriminated against. You don’t want other people telling you who you can or can’t marry, right? So why do you think it’s okay to tell other people who they can or can’t marry?
If it matters, I guess I’m an agnostic, now. I don’t know if there is a God or not; I don’t like to state as a certainty things that I have no possible way of verifying, so I don’t really have an opinion as to God’s exsistence or lack thereof. But if there is a God, and if he did create us, then he has clearly given us the innate ability to know right from wrong for a reason. I guess that it’s because he’s a busy deity. He’s got a whole universe to run. He doesn’t need us running to him everytime we’ve skinned our collective ethical knee.
And no, there are no limits.
How about this: not recognizing same-sex marriage is not bigotry. Does that work for you?
Miller
Where did you get that?
The Ryan: I got that from this post:
Clearly, you are putting forward the theory that one can discriminate without being a bigot. However, on re-reading I see that you are not dis-allowing that you can be a bigot and discriminate. Unfortunetly, your characteristically gnomic and opaque posting style did not make this immediately obvious. I apologize for not suffciently deconstructing your post before replying.
No, neither ethically nor syntactically.
Now, would you care to explain why you believe your statement is true? Or will you be like WV_Woman and just stamp your little foot, refuse, and leave the thread?
Asking The Ryan to explain a statement is just beggint to get bogged down in disucssions of the definitions of “bigotry,” “believe,” “statement,” and the placement of punctuation.
That’s one box you don’t want to open, Pandora.
Well, I’m not The Ryan, but here are some possible scenarios where not approving of same sex marriages wouldn’t neccesarily be bigotry.
-
You might not believe in the institution of marriage itself, for anyone, thinking it’s an outdated or exploitive situation. (I’ve seen people who believe that)
-
You might believe that the only purpose of marriage is to sire/bear children, and in that case, a gay marriage wouldn’t be possible. (That’s not a very common attitude in Western society today, but it has been in the past. Attitudes like that are what lead to arranged marriages and dynastic ones, and the most famous modern example would be the marriage between Prince Charles and Princess Diana. Aooarently, she was expected to give Charles sons, and then smile and look pretty for the cameras.)
-
You might think the term “marriage” has some sort of traditional or religious meaning, and should be reserved for the tie between a man and a woman. You could, while believing this, also support gay unions, with all the same rights, responsibilities and privileges as marriage, but just not called marriage. (This seems to be the most common of the three objections I’ve mentioned.)