General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsDoes being adamantly opposed to same-sex marriage make someone a bigot?
If no, why not?
| 70 votes, 0 passes | Time left: Unlimited | |
| Yes | |
61 (87%) |
|
| No, not necessarily | |
9 (13%) |
|
| 0 DU members did not wish to select any of the options provided. | |
| Show usernames
Disclaimer: This is an Internet poll |
|
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
madokie
(51,076 posts)Betty Karlson
(7,231 posts)My late great-grandfather was already in his nineties before someone in the family came out (me). For over nine decades, all he had heard about 'homosexuals' was that they were an aberration, an abomination, sinners, hell-bound, and all the rest.
We all know that KNOWING someone gay helps to soften those views,, and in time replace them with better views. But at the age of 93, There wasn't much time left to him to get to know the true me (take into account it took ME three years to come to terms with my sexuality).
That doesn't mean that my late great-grandfather was a bigot. He was a mild-mannered, understanding gentleman, full of love. When his wife became ill with Parkinson's, he took it upon himself to nurse her. And but for the last three months of her life, he managed it, even though he was 92 by the end. He prayed for all his children, grandchildren and great-grandchildren every day (inasmuch as he could still remember all their names). The closest thing to a present-day example of how gay-friendly he could have been would be his eldest son, my grandfather.
My grandfather is no bigot either. He always asks me to bring my boyfriend along. Like later this month, when we'll be celebrating his 89th birthday with him and his new wife. He asked me, his gay grandson, to be one of the four witness signatories of the marriage contract. I'm sure that if the boyfriend and I ever decide to get married, my grandfather will gladly attend (especially when there is a church ceremony involved; he likes that!).
My great-grandfather went to his grave in February 2002. There just hadn't been enough time for him to acquaint himself with the issue of homosexuality. He opposed it by convention, not out of hate. But his heart was in the right place. He wasn't a bigot - he was a closeted ally. If only he had lived to be 109...
madokie
(51,076 posts)I'm not calling your grand father or great grand father anything so lets not get off on that. The question was---- and I answered it as I see it
Have a good afternoon
MADem
(135,425 posts)I think the conditions often coexist.
Boomer
(4,288 posts)It's perfectly possible to love someone and know they are a wonderful person, but still recognize they have blind spots that make them less than perfect on certain subjects.
You don't have to love your great-grandfather less even if you acknowledge that on the issue of same-sex marriage he was a bigot. You understand the context of that bigotry, the limited opportunities he had to learn better, and you suspect that he might -- with sufficient time -- have sloughed off that bigotry.
Understanding doesn't negate the bigotry in that one area, but that's okay. Being a bigot on some topics doesn't mean your entire heart is black with hate for humanity. It doesn't make you the anti-Christ. It just means you're a flawed human being.
Betty Karlson
(7,231 posts)Yes, well: I guess we are all sinners in one way or another. 
And may be well forgiven for it, thank God.
Boomer
(4,288 posts)I don't see this as a matter of "sin". In fact, I don't think I'd call him a sinner even if I believed in that concept and in your god.
To me, sin is the commission of an act you know to be wrong, but you do it anyway. In the case of this man's great-grandfather, there was no recognition that his opposition to marriage equality was wrong. Quite the contrary, he thought his perspective was the correct one. Given his overall character, which seemed to be good, this particular bigotry of his was borne of ignorance, not sin.
Betty Karlson
(7,231 posts)sin is regarded as ANYTHING opposed to God's will. Even when that opposition is unwittingly commissioned, it is still a sin in word, though or deed. But it may be forgiven "for God sees the heart".
Christian-Reformed Churches have a very strict definition of sin and forgiveness. But in that strictness, there is a potential for great humility and gentleness: when all is potentially a sin, it serves no purpose to cower in a corner and hope to commission none, so just go out and make the best of the life and talents God gave you. All is potentially good when all is potentially sinful. My great-grandfather had a very evocative and practical approach to theology.
(Hence my words - I am still a Calvinist at heart.)
Adrahil
(13,340 posts)It is STILL a bigoted position. That doesn't mean that he didnt have other fine qualties. My Dad died opposing gay marriage. He was a white man born in the deep south in 1929. He struggled with prejudice all his life. He got over hus racism (mostly), he was respectful of women, and supported the first women firefighters in his department in the 70's. He learned to accept homosexuality, and even had an openly gay friend, but gay marriage was a bridge too far for him.
We talked about it a lot, and he understood that he opposing a right that affected him not in the let, but he couldnt let go of that a last bit of bigotry.
We live in our times. I'd say just accept that your grandad has his weaknesses, and more on.
pampango
(24,692 posts)
OneGrassRoot
(23,659 posts)
Rob H.
(5,620 posts)despite some people's claim to the contrary.
Sparhawk60
(359 posts)There is not one rational argument against gay marriage. I can (and do) disagree with people on a wide range of issues. However, not matter how wrong they are, I will admit there are rational arguments against my position. But on gay marriage? Nope, not one rational reason to oppose it.
Recursion
(56,582 posts)Things change a lot in 10 years.
(There were also people in 2006 here who backed Lieberman over Lamont in the primary.)
beam me up scottie
(57,349 posts)And anyone who claims otherwise because of doctrine, "religious freedom" or other such nonsense is a bigot as well.
ProfessorGAC
(71,843 posts)There are merely rationalizations for a clearly bigoted position.
randys1
(16,286 posts)You can be a victim and a bigot, I guess.
You can be a victim of your upbringing, I guess.
But you have to accept your responsibility that regardless of how you got that way, if you are that way, you are a bigot.
period
Solly Mack
(94,348 posts)
Erich Bloodaxe BSN
(14,733 posts)But I suppose there are still small numbers of people who have simply been misinformed, and are too young and too sheltered to have gotten away from those who are trying to teach them hate.
jberryhill
(62,444 posts)Being a bigot sure seems to make one adamantly opposed to same sex marriage.
skepticscott
(13,029 posts)in the sense of qualifying someone as, rather than in the sense of compelling someone to be some way.
Warren Stupidity
(48,181 posts)people who are opposed to same sex marriage. There are bigots who support same sex marriage. They could, for example, be extreme individualist anarchists who view same sex marriage as equivalent to marrying a hamster and equally none of their business. That would make them bigots and homophobes of the first order, but not opposed to same sex marriage.
Iggo
(48,730 posts)Warren Stupidity
(48,181 posts)Is there anyone here willing to defend the claim that it doesn't?
cheapdate
(3,811 posts)but in other places, there are without a doubt people who would.
If homosexuality is immoral, as some believe, then they're obligated to oppose it.
m-lekktor
(3,675 posts)
Revanchist
(1,375 posts)that gave a couple, regardless of the genders of the two people involved, the legal protections of couple-hood would have been the easier way to go since it would remove the wind from the sails who were claiming the "marriage is a religious ceremony." I guess I was trying to look at it as strictly a matter of nuance in those days and wasn't empathizing with those involved. I don't know if that would make me a former bigot.
nichomachus
(12,754 posts)Is that there are 1,300+ federal laws that confer benefits based on marriage and use the word "married." To gain equality, you would need to rewrite all those laws. That just isn't going to happen.
Exilednight
(9,359 posts)Could change all that by simply stating that all government documents and legislation using the word marriage is now redefined to mean civil unions.
jeff47
(26,549 posts)However, they were able to set up their laws, and their societal views, to treat that civil contract as we treat a "marriage".
As a result, most people in France today get the "civil contract" version. Even the heterosexuals. Only the devout get the "civil contract" and a marriage.
In a perfectly logical US, the civil contract approach would work and would even fix problems like atheists having to find a minister. However, our country is far from logical and has a long history of "separate but equal" not working.
skepticscott
(13,029 posts)are what the government is primarily granting in sanctioning and legalizing a union between two people, same-sex couples are also looking to have their unions regarded as of the same status in the eyes of society, a less practical, but still important thing. Having the unions of heterosexual couples sanctioned as "marriages" and those of same-sex couples as "civil unions" fails to reach that level. Granted, some segments of society will never regard them equally, which is a bigoted shame, but the government should.
safeinOhio
(35,071 posts)I'm against ALL marriages.
Jester Messiah
(4,711 posts)I think there's an interesting discussion to be had on what marriage even means anymore in today's world. The whole institution seems more and more (to me) like a relic of the past.
AlbertCat
(17,505 posts)Marriage is....and has always been a legal contract about property.Just because religions also used to be governments and made up some love-er-ly ceremonies to go with doesn't change that.
treestar
(82,383 posts)And now you can do prenuptial agreements which vary what the domestic relations law would provide. It creates financial and property entanglement.
skepticscott
(13,029 posts)Are you against two people committing to each other for a lifetime?
safeinOhio
(35,071 posts)if the odds were 50-50 it was going to crash.
skepticscott
(13,029 posts)And a poor attempt at deflection. Saying why YOU wouldn't do something is not an explanation for why you would oppose allowing anyone else to do it.
Your reluctance to take a firm position on the issue is duly noted.
safeinOhio
(35,071 posts)To be fair I would oppose anyone else getting on an airplane that had a 50-50 chance of crashing. I'm against all human suffering.
skepticscott
(13,029 posts)Unless you think that marriage, even if it ends in divorce, is nothing but suffering.
People suffer when their spouse dies, too, and that's pretty much a 100% chance. Even if no one ever had an unhappy marriage that ended in divorce, I assume you'd still oppose any and all marriage because of that suffering?
safeinOhio
(35,071 posts)recommend flying because it is very safe.
I have nothing against relationships. It is the legal part I appose.
uppityperson
(115,916 posts)Why? I am curious why you'd not want that.
safeinOhio
(35,071 posts)negotiated before they are co-mingled. Divorce leads to a war over material items based on blame for profit. The one with the best lawyer wins. It divides families and friends. You don't feel it is too easy to get married and too hard to end it?
I'm for a legal agreement not based on marriage law.
uppityperson
(115,916 posts)you broke up the partnership. It made it simple for me as I did not have to pay a lawyer to write it up. There was nothing there about blame, only division of assets. Perhaps other states have different statutes but that was what that one said.
What do you mean "marriage law"? Thanks, I am always interested in reading about other states, not sure what you mean here by this term as you used it.
LanternWaste
(37,748 posts)"Divorce leads to a war over material items based on blame for profit..."
Post hoc ergo prompter hoc. The comforting ally of the myopic and dogmatic.
safeinOhio
(35,071 posts)question of original post..because of one thing, something else follows.
skepticscott
(13,029 posts)And you know that, since I already addressed it in post 10.
Sad that your apologetics leads you to such transparent obfuscation, but it seems to be all you have.
safeinOhio
(35,071 posts)
JustABozoOnThisBus
(24,006 posts)... so it's a bit different than a plane crash.
treestar
(82,383 posts)We know it is as likely to be broken as to be an actual lifetime.
Remember that controversial sitcom that had the people say "for as long as we both shall love?" But at least that was honest, because I think that's what most people who get married today really mean.
safeinOhio
(35,071 posts)"When I date a man, I always ask, is this the kind of guy I'd want my children to spend every other week end with".
I once worked for a guy who'd been divorced three times and would say he was looking for the "future Ex-Mrs. (his last name). LOL.
uppityperson
(115,916 posts)Bluenorthwest
(45,319 posts)not discriminate against LGBT people. So if I ask 'Should the military be allowed to discriminate' the answer 'I don't think there should be a military' is simply evasive of the question being asked.
Let me ask you this way. Do you believe it is proper to deny to a minority group a practice allowed to the majority even if you yourself don't care for the practice?
beam me up scottie
(57,349 posts)I wonder why.
Exilednight
(9,359 posts)To why the government needs a military, but I can't make an argument as to why government needs to sanction a religious ceremony.
Is it bigoted that most religions don't recognize same sex marriage? The answer is yes.
Bluenorthwest
(45,319 posts)Note, atheists get married every day in the US, sans religion.
Also, you are not being asked to rationalize the need for a military or for marriage. This is the question again, give it another shot, it's very clear and simple:
Do you believe it is proper to deny to a minority group a practice allowed to the majority even if you yourself don't care for the practice?
I'll point out yet again that your opinion of the practice is irrelevant and offering it is an act of evasion.
Exilednight
(9,359 posts)a "civil contract", then what's the difference between a civil union and marriage if the civil union offers the exact same protections and benefits as what you perceive to be marriage?
ieoeja
(9,748 posts)
Captain Stern
(2,227 posts)However, if someone opposed all marriages equally, I'd say 'no'.
me b zola
(19,053 posts)Please, a person of good will can object to the institution of marriage and still demand equal right for all people. As an very explicit example: I am fundamentally opposed to the the institution of adoption as it is practiced today, yet I demand that LGBTQ are treated equally under the law in their ability to adopt. Its really that easy, treating others with respect.
Captain Stern
(2,227 posts)I specifically stated that the person in my example would oppose ALL marriages equally.
Jester Messiah
(4,711 posts)Being adamantly opposed to same-sex marriage is the result of someone being a bigot, and they are probably bigoted about several other things besides. It's a mindset problem.
Arkana
(24,347 posts)Not thinking or knowing you're a bigot doesn't MAKE you not a bigot.
goldent
(1,582 posts)sex marriage a few years ago. People use the term "bigot" way too often these days.
skepticscott
(13,029 posts)if he changed his mind so easily, now could he?
Warren Stupidity
(48,181 posts)goldent
(1,582 posts)Now it has become "bigotry" - I'm not buying it.
Warren Stupidity
(48,181 posts)the fact that bigotry was socially acceptable does not magically make it unbigoted.
LostOne4Ever
(9,629 posts)[font style="font-family:'Georgia','Baskerville Old Face','Helvetica',fantasy;" size=4 color=teal]It almost like he a politician or something 
[/font]
LeftyMom
(49,212 posts)I'd like to hope most people are mature enough not to structure their ideals around any one person.
JI7
(91,504 posts)But he did not really oppose it.
goldent
(1,582 posts)This bigotry business is getting complicated.
MellowDem
(5,018 posts)And yeah, pretty much, he lied to appeal to bigots when it was still socially acceptable to do so, definitely a bad mark on his record for me.
Recursion
(56,582 posts)I find his claim to have "changed his mind" completely disingenuous, but that's the sort of thing politicians have to do, sadly.
Hell, his denomination was AFAIK the first one in the US to solemnize gay marriages, decades ago.
goldent
(1,582 posts)But having adopted a "bigoted position" back then, that would have made him a bigot, at least publicly. I don't think he was a bigot then or now.
Warren Stupidity
(48,181 posts)You voted no. Obama doesn't get an exception. Nor does the pope if you oppose marriage equality you are a bigot. The vast majority here agree.
DemocraticWing
(1,290 posts)Opposing marriage equality is wrong and homophobic. Thinking that all marriage should be a "private" matter is a bigoted system that leaves the discrimination up to private parties.
Opposing non-discrimination laws against LGBT people also makes a person a bigot.
LWolf
(46,179 posts)I think "ignorant," and "insecure" first.
olddots
(10,237 posts)or what I call them TURD MAGGOTs.
qwlauren35
(6,281 posts)My mom is opposed. I think she's "got issues". It is hard for me to call her a bigot.
My sister doesn't thing LGBTQ people should have children. I think she's homophobic. Ironically, her step-son is gay and a full member of the family, as is his husband. Maybe she has changed her mind over time. I don't know.
Bigot is a very ugly word. It's hard for me to explain. It is a word I reserve for people who feel deep hatred for someone else because of something they are.
My mother doesn't feel hatred. My sister doesn't feel hatred. I think of them as twisted, and I think of their views as wrong. Not even sure why I use the word "homophobic" since they are not "afraid". They just "have issues".
I am coming to terms with the fact that I also have issues. I think kids should have two parents. Now, I'm okay if the parents don't live together, as long as both are active in the child's life, and preferably both live close by. And I don't care about their gender. But I want there to be TWO. And so, I have an issue with single parents. Does that make me a bigot? I don't think of myself that way, but I guess, to single parents, I am.
skepticscott
(13,029 posts)and one spouse dies, do you think the child should be taken away from that "single parent" and given to another couple, so that they can grow up with two parents?
If not, then I guess it's not clear what your 'issue' is.
qwlauren35
(6,281 posts)But I feel that that parent will have a more challenging experience, and the child will miss out on having two parents.
AlbertCat
(17,505 posts)Disgust then?
That they are "sinners" then?
Very judgmental.... like they are better somehow.... A superior example of mankind. With the things hetero couples so to kids all the time, why are they a better choice for children?
Sounds a little hate-y.....
qwlauren35
(6,281 posts)*I* just have a hard time with the word "bigot".
No, there is no disgust, there is no "sin". No "hate". Those are very strong words.
I think you can dislike something without hating it. But others probably see the world in a more binary fashion. Or, at least like, hate or don't care/think about it.
At any rate, if you feel the need to call my family members "bigots", go ahead. I just can't do it.
AlbertCat
(17,505 posts)Then what is there to object to?
qwlauren35
(6,281 posts)I'm guessing that with my sister, she thinks that a gay couple will not be able to teach how to deal with the opposite gender or nuances of a gender that they are not. I know a lesbian couple with sons went out of their way to introduce other men into their sons' lives.
Often with single parents, moms try to get the dads active in a son's life because they are concerned about aspects of manhood that they cannot teach. Similarly, some dads are squeamish about the aspects of womanhood that their daughters experience and try to find a woman for the daughters to talk to.
So, there it is. It's not disgust or sin. It's a hope that a child has a strong sense of gender identity, and a belief that living in a house with someone of that gender makes a difference.
I also believe that an opposite, two parent home has lots of merits, if the couple is loving toward each other and the children, and not "dysfunctional". But who is that lucky these days! So, I accept that there are many different ways to raise children. All I ask is that they are loved, protected from harm and taught a strong set of ethics that they will follow in their daily lives.
Bluenorthwest
(45,319 posts)toward the biases in your own family or far too unforgiving of biases in others. I am sure that you understand that every single form of bigot says they don't hate, they are not judging, blah, blah, blah. Rare as hell is the human bigot who says 'I hate them, I am a bigot' what they say is 'I love them, but....' and they also say 'God' and 'for their own good' and 'I don't think those people can.....'
qwlauren35
(6,281 posts)I know this about myself.
My sister's stepson's husband walked down the aisle as one of the groomsmen in my niece's wedding. My sister doesn't "hate" him. But she doesn't think he should have children. Since I have a similar bias about single parents, I decided not to argue about it. I don't like arguing with my sister.
I have always been comfortable calling my mom homophobic, and I think I've called her homophobic to her face. But there's just something really ugly about "bigot", so I can't use that word toward her.
I think the bottom line is that I think of a bigot as violently and vehemently opposed. The kind who would start a conversation with "those fuckin' XXXX's" (gays, blacks, Jews, etc.). The kind who would cheer when Matthew Sharpe got dragged by a truck or when Walter Scott got shot in the back.
I think if you look at my posts, you will not see the word "bigot". Guess I just learned something about myself.
AlbertCat
(17,505 posts)So.....
are the only bigots against blacks the ones who lynch them?
Are people who just won't rent them an apartment, or who don't like them being admitted to some school, or who are aghast their children have black friends or lovers just Negrophobes?
I'm not trying to be difficult, and I understand completely your reluctance to call your Mother or Sister a bigot. And your ideas about the word are not uncommon. I suppose, like we have degrees of murder and degrees of rape, there is a kind of scale of bigoted behavior. but, y'know..... think about it. Bigotry-Lite is still bigotry.
Humanist_Activist
(7,670 posts)I called her a racist to her face.
She told me it wasn't like that, that she was concerned about difficulties we would have in society. My best friend at the time was biracial, and his parents did NOT get along, to put it kindly, so she may have based her prejudice on that. Over time, especially after I actually did bring home girls of various different races, did she admit she was wrong, but I still viewed her as racist until then.
LeftyMom
(49,212 posts)I was raised by a single parent. Why? Because my non-custodial parent put her addictions ahead of her kids. I was ABSOLUTELY better off with one stable parent. If my dad has stuck by mom waiting for her to pull it together? I shudder to think. She still hasn't got her shit together, fyi.
So was my dad supposed to let my mom's drug problem ruin all of our lives or was he supposed to order us a step-mom from the Sears catalog or make us wards of the state or what?
For the record what he DID do was suck it up, get a divorce, buy a little house on the edge of a good school district and scrape by. We came out okay, and he's the reason why.
So on his behalf, I heartily encourage you to find a warm, dark place where your ignorant opinion of single parents belongs.
qwlauren35
(6,281 posts)But I was raised by two loving parents. Who lived apart.
However, I know that this is a personal bias. I think it stems from my view of teenaged girls and young women who find themselves pregnant, and decide to keep the child, but look around to everyone else to help them raise it. Having been one of the people who was supposed to cough up funds for this madness, I resent it, and it spills over.
By sharing this bias, I realize that it makes me an "ugly person" in your eyes. Go ahead and pound me. At some point, I will learn to confine my "bigotry" toward the small subset of single mothers who, in my mind, have no business being parents. And yes, I know it's bigotry. I own it, and I don't think it's going to go away.
LeftyMom
(49,212 posts)Tell me more, this is FASCINATING.
olddots
(10,237 posts)no printable comment .
riderinthestorm
(23,272 posts)goldent
(1,582 posts)It comes from some people who want to make a strong statement, and they exaggerate to make their point.
prayin4rain
(2,065 posts)I've always been perplexed by that. I started off arguing with him about it, but I started to feel rude, so I stopped.
skepticscott
(13,029 posts)a reason why he felt that way?
prayin4rain
(2,065 posts)I had just stated that OF COURSE gay people should be allowed to marry in a group setting and he touched my arm and said very sincerely and quietly to me. ...
"Oh, no, (my name), marriage is for a man and a woman" Kind of almost admonishing me, but in a nice way. ... like he was correcting me gently.
And I kind of froze and felt the urge to argue come up, but then was overcome by the feeling that preaching my opinions to him would be rude somehow.
And it probably seems like he was being sarcastic, but he wasn't. He really, sincerely felt that way. I think he may have been religious?
This happened like 15 years ago and I'm still confused by it.
yardwork
(65,716 posts)Some earlier generations of gay folks are sad that our community is losing some of the aspects that made it a community separate from the mainstream. To them, marrying is something that straight people do. Older generations of gay people suffered a great deal of discrimination, and some of them turned inward to their community and embraced being outsiders. To them, us younger gay folk getting married means that we are capitulating to a boring mainstream values system.
LostOne4Ever
(9,629 posts)[font style="font-family:'Georgia','Baskerville Old Face','Helvetica',fantasy;" size=4 color=teal]How is telling someone what they can or can not do because of your views on marriage not be bigoted.
That said, I know who you are addressing this to. I can't wait to see his response to this 
[/font]
valerief
(53,235 posts)They may be opposed to the marriage contract in general, and same-sex marriage is a subset of marriage.
Semantics, yes, but it's a dumb question to begin with.
skepticscott
(13,029 posts)that marriage between a man and a woman is fine and honorable, but that same-sex marriage shouldn't be allowed under any circumstances or in any form?
valerief
(53,235 posts)skepticscott
(13,029 posts)Last edited Fri Jun 12, 2015, 03:07 PM - Edit history (1)
I did not say "same-sex marriage" when I really meant "same-sex and heterosexual marriage". I should have thought that would be obvious from the paucity of people trying actively to prevent heterosexual couples from being legally married, but apparently it wasn't obvious enough.
William769
(57,272 posts)It's also against T.O.S. Don't believe me? ask the one's the were NUKED that didn't.
Behind the Aegis
(55,172 posts)Questions like that are pretty straight-forward, no pun intended.
William769
(57,272 posts)Last edited Fri Jun 12, 2015, 01:54 PM - Edit history (1)
So are the answers.
uppityperson
(115,916 posts)William769
(57,272 posts) Behind the Aegis
(55,172 posts)
Spazito
(55,096 posts)An obvious troll from day one, imo.
Thanks for the link, made my day!
KamaAina
(78,249 posts)http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/bigot
harrose
(380 posts)... Reukes and conservatism. Am I a bigot based on the definition you presented? Aren't we all?
KamaAina
(78,249 posts) harrose
(380 posts)... and even if you think they aren't, the definition also included ideas.
Arugula Latte
(50,566 posts)(Republicans, fundies, misogynists, etc.) and in disliking people for the way they were born, or where they were born (gay, black, female, transgender, Iraqi, Mexican, whatever).
harrose
(380 posts)... but the definition, as given, didn't say "groups which people are born into and cannot change." It simply said "groups" and "ideas." Based on the definition given, I'd have to say that I (and a lot of other people here) are bigots.
DeadLetterOffice
(1,352 posts)Do you automatically assume Republicans you've never met are asshats, simply by reason of their being Republicans? Then you may in fact be bigoted against Republicans.
I am certainly bigoted against Evangelical Christians. By default I assume their membership in the group makes them looney tunes. Not very charitable of me and I'm sure there are ECs out there who could prove me wrong, but it is in fact a prejudice I hold, and I have to own it.
me b zola
(19,053 posts)I am always deeply saddened by those in a minority group who use their voice to say, no, really I don't need or want that right, but every minority group has those members. It is in bad form~and an excuse for their bigotry~ for people outside of that group to point to the person who appears to be fine with second class citizenship as the reason why its okay for the privileged person to speak against equal rights.
beam me up scottie
(57,349 posts) Behind the Aegis
(55,172 posts)Well said!
Response to me b zola (Reply #59)
Name removed Message auto-removed
me b zola
(19,053 posts)Those people have the right to vote at eighteen and drink at 21. I cannot even imagine what your point really is. Are LGBTQ children that need to reach a certain age before they can be themselves? Are LGBTQs attempting to marry in their toddler years? Yeah, logic seems to be missing from your post.
Just silly, your argument.
Matrosov
(1,098 posts)always makes one a bigot. You are essentially saying that person or group does not have the same value as other human beings.
Response to Matrosov (Reply #62)
Name removed Message auto-removed
William769
(57,272 posts)
One_Life_To_Give
(6,036 posts)Technically speaking we can speculate reasons why someone might be an LGBT supporter and still oppose SS Marriage. And while we could come up with many humerus and outlandish reasons for such they just prove the case that it is technically possible. However if we were to assign probabilities to those views actually being held in the body public. They would be overwhelmed by the homophobes in terms of percentages of the total. IOW Ninety something percent are going to be bigots.
Response to One_Life_To_Give (Reply #71)
William769 This message was self-deleted by its author.
fishwax
(29,331 posts)I would say that opposition to same-sex marriage is bigotry. Adamantly doing so is adamant bigotry.
I think there is certainly a time and place for labeling people bigots, but I personally try to avoid the is of that identity in most cases and in the general, because it (in my experience and from my perspective) doesn't prove productive. If someone expresses a bigoted position, I find I'll have more success addressing the attitude as bigoted rather than addressing them as a bigot. The former presents something that can be improved and modified; the latter puts someone in a much more defensive and entrenched position.
The fact is that we're all flawed, but while many people are open to and interested in understanding and correcting their flaws, few will react well to being defined by and/or reduced to them.
skepticscott
(13,029 posts)and the point of this is not to go around calling people bigots to their face (which is unlikely to be productive with those types of people), but to recognize where the bigotry lies and to direct efforts against it and against those who deny that it exists.
fishwax
(29,331 posts)
Damansarajaya
(625 posts)condemn her for opposing gay marriage until at least 2013.
But, she did change her position, once everybody else had changed theirs, so that's something . . .
It shows she will do the right thing when forced to.
http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2014/06/hillary-clintons-gay-marriage-problem/372717/
Bluenorthwest
(45,319 posts)support of marriage equality which they equate to support for LGBT rights. Yes, Hillary was one of the later Democrats to fully endorse marriage equality. She was also one of the first national political figures to stand up for LGBT people and to take the unrelenting heat that used to come for doing so.
Back in 1992 Bill had the Democratic Nomination, Republicans had George Bush. The GOP keynote speech was given by Pat Buchanan. His Party at that time included Elizabeth Warren, Lincoln Chafee and Jim Webb all currently leading 'Democrats'. Pat's speech to his loyal fellow Republicans was a vicious tirade against liberals in general with strong focus on uppity women and those horrible gays.
Before Bill was ever elected, Republicans took to the media to call Hillary. a 'radical abortion on demand feminist and ally to militant homosexuals'.
Elizabeth Warren voted for that Republican Party. Lincoln Chafee who claims to be 'pro gay' was a full member of that Party that had just presided over the neglect of the AIDS crisis, the death of 30,000 Americans gone unmentioned by their precious leadership, and Chafee, like Warren, like Webb, heard that nasty, vile speech and all that unmitigated hate spewing forth from the Republicans and he voted for it.
So it is a big, giant picture. DU was all in for Warren. Her timeline is an ugly, nasty thing with GOP marked on it until 1996. She was opposed to any rights for gay people and her Party actively pursued that goal, Reagan pursued it with death and genocidal intention. Webb was in Reagan's administration.
Damansarajaya
(625 posts)Not exactly a ringing endorsement, is it.
Bluenorthwest
(45,319 posts)straight DUers who were happy to support Warren who was in an anti gay Party that was attacking Hillary for supporting LGBT rights who then show up with a timeline to say 'look at when she supported marriage equality' as if that was the be all and end all, as if Warren, Webb and Chafee all being in an openly anti gay, anti choice Party of economic thieves has no bearing at all.
My comment is about straight folks who lecture when they have scant experience, know no history, and really don't give a fuck.
I support Bernie Sanders. But I don't think poorly of Hillary on LGBT rights compared to anyone other than Bernie. He's better, he also had less of his own ass on the line for it so early on. Hillary was made into a symbol of liberals who support militant gays, and she stood with us, I'm not going to attack her because she helped defend me against the Party of Warren, of Chafee and of Webb.
irisblue
(34,770 posts)the vitriol and hate that he spewed made me aware of how much hate there is for LGBT people, and I was sure if he could, we'd be in camps. Those reactions are still there in many people, just more buried and subtle.
yardwork
(65,716 posts)melm00se
(5,087 posts)this is not a black and white issue.
it boils down to the definition of marriage.
1) If marriage is defined as a secular ceremony, then yes, if someone opposes that then you can probably term them a bigot. The government should allow marriages between consenting adults.
2) If, on the other hand, marriage is defined as a religious ceremony open to anyone who meets the religious requirements of such a union, which usually extend beyond consenting adults: ie you are a member (in good standing) of that faith, agree to/meet the caveats/requirements placed by the religious institution etc AND you have support the ability/right for consenting adults to have the secular marriage, the situation is less clear.
3) if a person falls into category 2 but DOES NOT support the ability/right for consenting adults to have the secular marriage, then they may be eligible to be labelled a bigot.
However, if someone supports all other progressive and inclusive values as it relates to LGBT people save marriage should they be cast out and forever more be labelled a "bigot"?
Additionally, according to a recent Pew survey support for gay marriage in the LGBT community is not universal (although it is pretty damn high). Are they bigots?
Bluenorthwest
(45,319 posts)So what some club sets up as rules for their own, that has nothing to do with other people. US persons are allowed to divorce, Catholic Church 'does not recognize this' but fact is, Catholics get divorced and no one at the court house can say 'but you are Catholic and not allowed'.
melm00se
(5,087 posts)Let's take Baptists: they don't have marry same sex couples but they certainly shouldn't have the right to say "no gays can get married" any more than the government should be able to say "Baptists you must marry gay couples"
skepticscott
(13,029 posts)I'm asking about the legalization and sanctioning of same-sex marriage by the secular government, and the opposing of the same, not about what religious organizations do within their own walls. And I'm not talking about simply "failing to support" same-sex marriage, or about people who just have the idea in their own head that there shouldn't be same-sex marriage but never take any active steps to keep it from being legal or attempt to persuade others to their way of thinking. That's not "opposing".
And can blacks be bigoted against other blacks? Muslims against other Muslims? Christians against other Christians? Yes, yes and yes. No reason why the same thing can't be true in the LGBT community.
Yo_Mama
(8,303 posts)William769
(57,272 posts)WOW!
Yo_Mama
(8,303 posts)Neither one of them ever seemed conflicted about being gay, so I wouldn't call them bigots.
If you want to, go ahead.
Response to William769 (Reply #84)
Name removed Message auto-removed
LanternWaste
(37,748 posts)No more and no less than opposition to inter-racial marriages illustrates one as a bigot.
craigmatic
(4,510 posts)have a right to marry and you can have people who don't hate gays but don't think they have a right to marry due to religion or upbringing.
Bluenorthwest
(45,319 posts)'that was my upbringing'. Anyone who thinks a minority group should not have rights they have is in fact a bigot, parse the word 'hate' all day long and try to wrap it up in religion it is still bigotry.
And anyone who thinks I should have equal rights to them, I don't give a shit what their inner opinion is. Why would I? Same in reverse. A person who wants me deprived of liberties, I don't care what their rationale is, why should I?
irisblue
(34,770 posts)I am an American. I should have all the duties and benefits of that gift. I don't care if you like me or not, but we are equal in the eyes of the law and should be so in society.
Juicy_Bellows
(2,427 posts)they are being bigots. If they say they have no problem with gay people and love them but don't support their right to marry, how do they skirt the bigot badge?
craigmatic
(4,510 posts)Juicy_Bellows
(2,427 posts)LanternWaste
(37,748 posts)What specifically leads you to believe that religious-motivations for bigotry are not in fact, bigotry?
craigmatic
(4,510 posts)have sex with different minority groups but still hate them and vice versa so if that can exist then the reverse must also exist. Just because somebody agrees with you on an issue doesn't mean they like you and just because somebody likes you doesn't mean they'll agree with you. People are strange creatures that's all I'm saying.
oberliner
(58,724 posts)...including three-quarters or more in 33 of the 36 countries where the question was asked.
http://www.pewforum.org/2013/04/30/the-worlds-muslims-religion-politics-society-morality/
That's a lot of bigots.
Arugula Latte
(50,566 posts)and hold them "sacred." All beliefs should be open to criticism -- including, and probably especially, religious beliefs.
Skittles
(162,403 posts)WHO WOULDA THUNK IT???
Bluenorthwest
(45,319 posts)Europe got into it, but for centuries Muslims and Christians alike said buying and selling humans to be used as forced labor was morally proper as seen through the eyes of their deities. That too, was a lot of bigots, don't you think? Or was the fact that there were a lot of them someone mitigating, the majority makes it moral?
oberliner
(58,724 posts)Or are the morals fixed and people can eventually evolve towards them? Or are they both fluid?
Are there behaviors that we now consider to be moral eventually going to be found to be immoral?
When that time comes, will we then be thought of as immoral people as a result?
Bluenorthwest
(45,319 posts)If Muslims bigoted views are subject to change, then they should change them without delay. Same for the rest of the religious world because if your religion used to accept the slave trade as righteous and Godly act, your religion has very little claim to moral leadership or excellence.
oberliner
(58,724 posts)My point is that they do not view them as bigoted. Just like the rest of the religious world don't believe themselves to be bigots.
In fact, I would argue that there are hundreds of millions of religious people who believe that you are engaging in immoral behavior if you are not following some of the critical instructions of their religions.
They would probably tell you to change your views without delay.
My response to your question was to ask my question. If the majority does not make something moral then what does? Who has the "right" morality? How is that determined?
I am certainly not arguing that appeal to religious authority has any legitimacy. I am, suggesting, however, that there was a time when most of the world did not object morally to slavery. It was a common feature of societies around the world for centuries. Now most of the world believes it to be an immoral practice. Is that something that humanity has evolved to understand? Did people back then know they were behaving immorally even though it was an accepted practice? Are there, therefore, any currently accepted practices that humanity will eventually evolve to deem immoral?
I find this a fascinating conversation - I hope you don't take anything personally. I love discussing philosophical questions like this.
Bluenorthwest
(45,319 posts)atrocity is not sufficient to redeem the faith or the believer. If you only learn 'we were very wrong' and not 'we have the capacity to be that wrong while thinking God is telling us to do it' you have not learned anything of value, and simply continue to use the religion to validate whatever the fuck it is you want to do in any given moment or era. If you 'repent' from being a freaking slave trader but continue to assume you are always right about everything, you have not repented and are still basically a slave trader who is not currently trading slaves.
It is an interesting conversation.
guillaumeb
(42,649 posts)From the dictionary:
1. stubborn and complete intolerance of any creed, belief, or opinion that differs from one's own.
2. the actions, beliefs, prejudices, etc., of a bigot.
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/bigotry
By that definition, that opposition, and intolerance for a differing opinion, is bigotry.
Response to guillaumeb (Reply #103)
Name removed Message auto-removed
whatthehey
(3,660 posts)I certainly don't speak for all supporters of marriage equality. I'm just one among billions. I have however never come across any of those billions who says it should be illegal to voice opposition to the idea, as opponents routinely say equal marriage should be against the law (nor, if you want a more strained analogy, have I heard one say that either hetero marriage should be illegal or that anti-equality people should be banned from marrying).
I suppose some are possible, but certainly not as the defining characteristic of equality supporters, whereas the defining characteristic of opponents is to withhold a right from others by force of law.
Skidmore
(37,364 posts)under the law in a plural society. You check your sensibilities at the door when going into the public arena and afford all people the rights and dignity as citizens you would claim for yourself. Who knows? Perhaps you may come too see all others as human beings as equals .deserving of respect
EvolveOrConvolve
(6,452 posts)The bigger question is: if someone conflates marrying a bicycle with gay marriage does that make that person a bigot?
beam me up scottie
(57,349 posts) akbacchus_BC
(5,813 posts)Does it affect you? Live and let live as far as am concerned! This is such a silly poll.
beam me up scottie
(57,349 posts)Seems kind of selfish to think if something doesn't affect you personally you shouldn't care.
Response to beam me up scottie (Reply #133)
Behind the Aegis This message was self-deleted by its author.
Behind the Aegis
(55,172 posts)Reminds of worse days.
beam me up scottie
(57,349 posts)Such a simple question...
skepticscott
(13,029 posts)about anything that doesn't affect them personally? If you really need that question answered for you, you're probably on the wrong site.
LostOne4Ever
(9,629 posts)[font style="font-family:'Georgia','Baskerville Old Face','Helvetica',fantasy;" size=4 color=teal]Hey people are getting rounded up and put into camps like we did to the Japanese during WWII! We got to stop this![/font]
[font style="font-family:'Georgia','Baskerville Old Face','Helvetica',fantasy;" size=4 color=teal]I care because I believe everyone should be treated like human beings and have the EQUAL RIGHT!!!
Same thing with this issue, and no it is not silly. It deadly serious!
FFS, why are posts like this showing up on DU!!![/font]
Response to akbacchus_BC (Reply #131)
Name removed Message auto-removed
Skittles
(162,403 posts)AND SHAME ON ANYONE WHO THINK OTHERWISE
Warren DeMontague
(80,708 posts)It shakes out to legitimizing discrimination against people, so it is bigotry in my mind.
Starboard Tack
(11,181 posts)Close minded, yes. A bigot? No. You would have to expand on what you mean by "adamantly".
Marriage is a social convention, which means different things to different people. In itself, it is not a subject of bigotry.
Nice try though,
beam me up scottie
(57,349 posts)How do you justify your defense of people who deny others human rights?
Starboard Tack
(11,181 posts)Do you really not understand the meaning of bigotry?
You are throwing out broad scenarios that may involve bigotry, or may involve sincerely held social, religious or spiritual beliefs. Many Jews, for example, do not believe in marrying outside of their faith. Does that make them bigoted? Catholics usually insist on conversion if one wishes to marry in a Catholic church. Hey, it's their club and they get to make the rules. They can only ex-communicate their own, after all.
Many will argue that marrying outside of one's church or race is not conducive to a healthy society. As much as you and I may disagree with them, I think it is unfair to label them as bigots, based solely on that viewpoint, without digging deeper. Of course, if they claim that interracial marriage somehow weakens the gene pool or other such garbage, then we can assume they are racist bigots.
The world is not quite as black and white as the small minded would prefer.
As you well know, I am a supporter of an individual's right to do whatever the fuck they want, as long as they do no harm to others. Who, or what they marry is nobody else's business, imo. Sexual orientation, ethnicity and religion should have no bearing. That said, why would anyone seek approval from an organization which has stated its opposition to same sex marriage.
This is a serious issue for the Vatican, and if things do not change soon, then its power will continue to decline, which imo is not such a bad thing. Many people will still be Catholic, but they won't be attending church services. I already see this, both here in Italy and also in Mexico. There is little love left for the church.
skepticscott
(13,029 posts)which is telling, but not surprising. "Sincerely held beliefs" do not excuse bigotry, as much as you would like to give religion a free pass in that regard, since bigotry, virtually without exception, IS based on sincerely held beliefs. There is no justification for claiming that someone who sincerely believes that "marrying outside of one's church or race is not conducive to a healthy society" isn't a bigot, while at the same time arguing that someone who believes with equal sincerity that "interracial marriage somehow weakens the gene pool" is a bigot. That type of double standard is just another example of your religious apologetics, particularly those championing the pope and the Catholic Church.
beam me up scottie
(57,349 posts)From religioustolerance.org:
In our web site, we choose to define these words in terms of actions, not beliefs:
* homophobia as engaging in a behavior aimed at denigrating -- or restricting the human rights of -- persons who have a homosexual orientation and/or who engages in homosexual activity.
This behavior can take many forms: signing a plebiscite; sending an Email to one's senator or representative; participating in a demonstration; voting on a school board; knowingly voting to elect a homophobe; talking to coworkers or friends, delivering a sermon; etc.
The equal rights sought by gays, lesbians, and bisexuals (GLBs) include what many believe to be the most important human right: to be married; to have their spousal status recognized and registered; and to be assigned benefits and obligations by the government equal to those received by opposite-sex married couples. Other rights are protection from hate-motivated crimes, protection in accommodation, and employment security.
* homophobe as a person who engages in homophobic behavior.
* homophobic, an adjective referring to a behavior which attempts to maintain special rights for heterosexuals.
Would a so called supporter of rights use arguments like these?:
That's a straw man argument used by right wing religious bigots. No one is "seeking approval" from religious institutions, we're asking them to stop opposing human rights which are granted by governments, not their gods.
If you claim that lgbt people are "inherently disordered" and that same sex marriage threatens families then I will assume you're a homophobic bigot.
Stop using right wing religious memes, this isn't about protecting "beliefs", it's about opposition to human rights.
Sorry, Tack, you don't get to choose which human beings are less than equal, if you oppose same sex marriage don't complain because you're being called a bigot, accept that it's what you are.
Religious bigotry is still bigotry.
"At some point in our lifetime, gay marriage won't be an issue, and everyone who stood against this civil right will look as outdated as George Wallace standing on the school steps keeping James Hood from entering the University of Alabama because he was black."
― George Clooney
Starboard Tack
(11,181 posts)First of all, marriage is not a human right any more than it is a heterosexual right. It is a civil right dependent on the society one lives in.
Bluenorthwest
(45,319 posts)Article 16.
(1) Men and women of full age, without any limitation due to race, nationality or religion, have the right to marry and to found a family. They are entitled to equal rights as to marriage, during marriage and at its dissolution.
Note that it does not say men and women must marry each other, it states that both men and women have the right to marry. In many cultures the idea is that the women have no say, UN does not agree.
http://www.un.org/en/documents/udhr/
Response to Bluenorthwest (Reply #223)
Name removed Message auto-removed
Starboard Tack
(11,181 posts)And it is a very noble ideal. Unfortunately, the reality of the world is somewhat different and the struggle continues to translate this Declaration into reality.
beam me up scottie
(57,349 posts)You continued defense of bigotry is noted.
Starboard Tack
(11,181 posts)But I still love you and am happy to have you as my most devoted fan. You have replaced Warren in that regard. 
Un forte abbraccio dal tuo amico a Roma.
beam me up scottie
(57,349 posts)Qu'vath guy'cha v'aka, QI'yaH yIntagh mu'qaD
truebrit71
(20,805 posts)Or is he getting a little, I don't know, ratty...
beam me up scottie
(57,349 posts)Cuz marrying a human being of the same gender is just like marrying an animal according to Tack.
Starboard Tack
(11,181 posts)Ecco! Il tuo compito per oggi sara di studiare "Il paradosso del mentitore".
skepticscott
(13,029 posts)Read my posts 65 and 124 (assuming that you haven't already and are just being deliberately evasive).
The question is about people who attempt to prevent same-sex couples from enjoying the same rights and benefits as heterosexual couples. But I suspect you knew that too, and are just engaging in clever sophistry in an attempt to defend a rather indefensible opinion.
As always, your views on same-sex marriage are...outliers..shall we say, as far as DU are concerned. Virtually all of the progressives who responded seem to regard this as an uncontroversial and uncomplicated issue, just as they would regard vigorous and repeated attempts to prevent interracial marriage from being legal. But from your post, it's clear that you wouldn't regard that as the work of bigots, either. It's just a "social convention", right? Nothing to do with equal rights and equal treatment, right?
EvolveOrConvolve
(6,452 posts)Based on this post and your previous history of posts regarding the subject, you seem oddly ambivalent about gay marriage.
beam me up scottie
(57,349 posts)Humanist_Activist
(7,670 posts)skepticscott
(13,029 posts)ambivalent in this case, but yes, this thread has exposed some very interesting things. Even on a progressive web site, there are some rather distasteful undercurrents.
Starboard Tack
(11,181 posts)You interpret my endorsement of an individual's right to marry whomever and/or whatever, as long as no harm is done, as being somehow the opposite. I have been accused of bigotry and homophobia by some of our more intolerant members, which is laughable. But, you know very well what keyboard warriors can be like when they decide to gang up on those who rub them the wrong way.
Let me be clear. I fully support same sex marriage and the struggle for lgbt rights. There is no ambivalence on my part.
Rob H.
(5,620 posts)It's also a legal contract that confers certain rights; when a person says they're opposed to same-sex marriage, they're also implicitly saying they don't think same-sex couples deserve the same legal rights as married heterosexual couples, and that's bigoted.
Starboard Tack
(11,181 posts)Marriage may also be a legal contract, which may confer certain legal rights.
If someone opposes same sex marriage because they don't believe the same legal rights should apply, then they are bigots.
If they oppose it purely within the context of a personal spiritual or religious belief, without denying them any of the same rights as heterosexual couples, then their opposition does not imply bigotry.
Civil rights should never be determined or restricted by gender identity or sexual orientation, nor should they be determined or restricted by whether one is married or in a civil union. Otherwise, marriage itself becomes a form of institutional bigotry.
beam me up scottie
(57,349 posts)By definition, bigots are people with unshakable baseless prejudices. There is absolutely no reason, besides blind prejudice, to deny same sex couples the right to civil marriage.
You can use religious language to express your belief that gays and lesbians are disgusting second class citizens unworthy of rights that heterosexuals take for granted, but it doesn't make your position any less bigoted. Logically, there is no reason to put same-sex relationships on a lesser legal footing than opposite sex unions, unless you think there's something wrong with them.
You can insist you don't wish gay people any harm. Perhaps not. But there were lots of pro-segregationists who didn't wish ill upon black people, but still didn't want to drink out of the same fountains. They too were bigots.
You can point out that discrimination against gays and lesbians is a longstanding tradition, but that doesn't excuse your bigotry. If anything, it makes it worse. It was one thing to fear what the expansion of gay rights might do when gays and lesbians had no rights. Today we're decades into gay liberation and none of the dire predictions have come true. For example, children raised by same-sex parents are at least as healthy and well-adjusted as those raised by opposite sex parents—and no more likely to self-identify as gay.
***
Calling someone a bigot isn't a failure of tolerance. Nobody is challenging the right of the anti-equal marriage brigade to speak its mind. Nobody is trying to take rights away from them or relegate them to second-class citizenship. They have the Constitutional right to make up whatever crazy rules they want for marriage within their own religions. If only they were willing to extend the same tolerance to gays and lesbians.
http://bigthink.com/focal-point/if-you-oppose-equal-marriage-you-are-a-bigot
Lee-Lee
(6,324 posts)
Algernon Moncrieff
(5,961 posts)In the legal sense, marriage is a contract that binds two people in a series of property sharing and inheritance rights. I think this legal arrangement should be renamed "civil union"; I think all persons wishing to enter into such agreements should go to a city hall or courthouse or notary and enter into a civil union agreement, and pay the appropriate fees.
Marriage is a social and religious institution. It should not be legally binding, and should be performed by folks in the spirituality business.
skepticscott
(13,029 posts)It is about same-sex couples enjoying the same civil rights and privileges as heterosexual couples, whatever those may be under the law. It is about people who speak and act against that principle, and those who claim to uphold it, but who are strident apologists for those who oppose it.
Algernon Moncrieff
(5,961 posts)Let every couple have equal treatment under the law in the eyes of the courts.
Everything else is between the couple and their church, mosque, temple, etc.
skepticscott
(13,029 posts)that the difference between "legal unions" and "spiritual marriage" is all about nomenclature.
Algernon Moncrieff
(5,961 posts)The analogy I'd make is to the word "Christmas." Christmas means very different things to those who are secular versus those who are devoutly Christian. To the secular, the holiday centers around presents and eating, and there is generally gravitation to songs such as "Frosty the Snow Man" and "Rudolph the Red Nosed Reindeer" that do not have any spiritual connotation. To the devoutly Christian, the holiday centers on church services and nativity recreations, and music tends to be more traditional spiritual tunes, such as "Go Tell it on the Mountain" and "Joy to the World."
"Marriage" is a similarly loaded word. Those whose lives around their faith cannot or will not separate their spiritual interpretation of marriage from the legal definition of the term. Their faith teaches them that certain relationships are immoral, and therefore they can't condone marriage in his context. We at DU (I'm as guilty as anyone) are generally quick to associate these types of beliefs with fundamentalist Christians, but they actually apply equally to Orthodox Jews, Muslims, and other faiths.
..so I say take the word "marriage" out of the equation for everybody. Everyone should have a legally binding civil union that defines the relationship's property and inheritance rights in the eyes of the law (and the rights of offspring), and any one who wishes to do so can be "married" by a priest, shaman, rabbi, imam, or Elvis impersonator of their choosing.
PowerToThePeople
(9,610 posts)skepticscott
(13,029 posts)that are not granted to couples who aren't (including those who want to be, but can't, because of religious bigotry and the defenders of religious bigotry).
PowerToThePeople
(9,610 posts)My angst is against marriage as a state controlled entity. Why are not all people treated equally? Because marriage is just another form of societal control. Let individuals make whatever contracts they want in regards to their personal lives, why does the state need involved at all?
XemaSab
(60,212 posts)n/t
Exilednight
(9,359 posts)I don't believe the government should be in the job of marriage for any couple, whether they are straight, gay, or otherwise. Civil unions should be the norm for this country, and marriages should only be recognized by religion.
The right uses the construct of marriage to force religion down our throat. Remove the idea of government sanctioned marriage and you remove the religion argument.
skepticscott
(13,029 posts)particularly, while still advocating for heterosexual marriage. Which is what the question is about. As I noted above, I didn't say "same-sex marriage" when I really meant ALL marriage. Why would you think I had?
Exilednight
(9,359 posts)World the government wouldn't be in the marriage business. Cloaking this whole thing in marriage is why it has taken so long for gay rights equality to progress.
The language we use in these arguments matters. As soon as we concede it is "marriage" that is being debated, we forfeit the religious element that the right wants to push upon us.
My basic argument is this, let us have civil unions, get rid of government marriage and let each religion decide if they recognize two people as being married.
As a Buddhist marrying a Lutheran, I highly doubt the Catholic Church will recognize my marriage.
skepticscott
(13,029 posts)And while I don't necessarily disagree with your position on the issue you're addressing, it's not the issue I asked about.
As also noted, regardless of what you call the arrangement, this is about equal treatment and equal rights. Certain people would oppose granting same-sex couples the same rights as heterosexual couples, even if you purged the specific word "marriage" from the conversation completely. The question is, are those people bigots?
Exilednight
(9,359 posts)This is where the whole issue diverges.
Equal rights should be universally guaranteed and protected by law. People should have the right to be in a union with whomever they wish, providing they are of legal age. They should be entitled to the same rights, no matter their gender or sex.
Equal treatment is a bit trickier. Can government really force the Catholic Church to recognize anyone's union if it falls outside of their church doctrine? Should the church be forced to give communion to a gay couple and forced to perform their ceremonies?
Is the Catholic Church bigoted? Yes, but it shouldn't be illegal for the church to deny such things.
skepticscott
(13,029 posts)equal treatment under the law, which is not a different thing than equal rights.
And as I made quite clear above, I'm not saying anything about what religious organizations do within their own walls. But when religious organizations try to make what goes on outside their walls conform to their internal doctrine, when they try to impose on everyone what they have only the right to impose on their own voluntary members, that's something else entirely.
skepticscott
(13,029 posts)The question asked is not directed at people who oppose on principle the government sanctioning of any marriage, including both heterosexual and same-sex marriages. It is directed at people who maintain that a legal marriage should only be allowed between a man and a woman and who only oppose the legalization of same-sex marriages. Those of you who have addressed your response to the first issue were apparently under the mistaken impression that "same-sex marriage" meant "all marriage".
I am, to be honest, just a wee bit skeptical about so many people on a progressive web site supposedly misconstruing what was being asked here. It's not like this particular issue isn't in the news constantly, and a regular topic of discussion on this site (as opposed to the issue of whether the government should be in the marriage business at all). But anyone who genuinely misunderstood is free to respond to the clarified question.
Spazito
(55,096 posts)ellisonz
(27,773 posts)Unequivocally.
Omnith
(171 posts)
Kali
(56,126 posts)might be an exception out there, but I am not seeing it.
(well, maybe the "all marriage is bad" line and the argument that singles are discriminated against by the advantages/rights/privileges married couples have????)
On the Road
(20,783 posts)despite what some people seem to think about here. If you want to call the near-universal consensus in Western religion and Western history for many, many centuries, go ahead, but it tends to make it meaningless. The attempt to rewrite history on this issue is absolutely breathtaking.
Humanist_Activist
(7,670 posts)What rewrite of history are you talking about?
Can you clarify?
On the Road
(20,783 posts)Anyone who has no interest in providing equal rights for gay people is probably a bigot. There are reasons other than bigotry for not buying into the current concept of gay marriage.
People often impute the beliefs common in their own environment to various historical times. For example, they may assume that Martin Luther King would have supported gay marriage when in fact this is unlikely. The same thing holds with the historical Jesus -- people assume he would have been been fine with gay relationships just because he was a good guy, despite the fact that this was an unthinkable position for someone of his background and society. The difference between the historical record and people's perception is what I was referring to as rewriting history.
Along the same lines, there seems to be a growing opinion that same-sex sex is either not really prohibited by the Bible or that the prohibitions are trivial. This implies people who believe otherwise are poorly informed and are driven by religious bigotry when to my knowledge these interpretations is that they are relatively new and poorly supported either by either modern textual analysis or historical commenters.
US law need not be consistent with the Bible or American ethical consensus, but the Bible and longstanding social norms bear on the question of whether to require the existing institution of marriage to be expanded to same-sex unions, and if so how to view dissenters among ministers.
Until now, the society's views of marriage were closely enough aligned with the Christian sacrament that differences in definitions were marginal. Now that is changing, and the question is whether to make the change in the civil or religious sphere. I think it is preferable to do it in the civil sphere even if that means making all marriages civil only. The current popular solution of not only changing the religious sacrament but forcing unwilling pastors to perform those ceremonies is IMO unnecessary and politically not very farsighted.
Humanist_Activist
(7,670 posts)First off, Marriage wasn't a sacrament until about the 12th century A.D.
(source)
Before then, marriages were tolerated, but not as important as celibacy and keeping the faith for when Jesus returns.
Civil marriages predate any Christian church, and they have existed parallel to the Church for a long time. Different countries handle it differently, as did different cultures. As far as Martin Luther King Jr. here's an interview with one of his fellow civil rights leaders, who was an openly gay man at the time:
http://www.advocate.com/arts-entertainment/people/2015/01/19/bayard-rustin-martin-luther-king-s-views-gay-people
I think MLK Jr. would have evolved as his wife did, as an advocate for LGBT rights and even same-sex marriage. That's not rewriting history, that's informed speculation based on the facts.
Also, I frankly don't care about speculations in the Bible, its irrelevant in a secular society. Some churches will be pro-same sex marriage, some will be anti-same sex marriage based on their interpretations of the text. Its so contradictory that neither would have an upper hand on what is actually true.
On the Road
(20,783 posts)and if you are recommending making all marriages civil, I agree.
However, in the US marriage is now a joint civil/religious institution. As long as that is the case, it is tied to Christianity, Christian deism, or the predominant Christian deistic ethic the countr ethic. If that is an issue, one sensible choice is to decouple the two. Right now the current effort insists that the institution remain a religious one (since civil unions are now considered déclassé). Short of making the institution civil, it's difficult to see how religious concerns can be considered not relevant.
MLK's views might have developed, although using the black ministry as a guide it is very possible they would not have. What I am saying it appears difficult for people to accept the version of MLK that really existed. The term "viewing the past through the lens of the present" may be better than "rewriting history" for describing the disconnect.
Humanist_Activist
(7,670 posts)the several states(and they vary on this) allow non-government officials to represent the state in officiating marriages in those states. Those individuals may or may not be members of religious organizations, or even be clergy. Due to the nature of the 1st and 14th amendments, states are generally not allowed to arbitrarily restrict this privilege to select groups or individuals. However, those individuals and groups are, generally, exempt from performing marriages they are not willing to perform.
Classic example are interfaith marriages, many churches, with officiants in the form of clergy will refuse to marry such couples, even though, if a magistrate attempted the same, they would be violating the law. Another example would be churches refusing to marry interracial couples, that actually happened recently, and it was perfectly legal, because they are a "private club" allowed to set their own rules, exempting them from laws such as the Civil Rights Act of 1964.
The fact is, nothing would change for these churches that refuse to perform same sex marriages, they can and have continued to deny performing such marriages into the future.
As far as the country's ethic, its not based on Christianity at all, but rather on several writers and philosophies of the Enlightenment and Late Medieval Period, with some Greek and Roman thought put in. Our common law was inherited from the English, who themselves inherited it from the Danelaw, which was pagan, if anything.
The point with MLK, which you seemed to have missed is that the people who actually knew him, his wife and Bayard among them, knew him as a pragmatic man, who had to compromise on certain principles at the time to make certain advances, but was himself not full of hate towards gays. He could have denounced and refused Bayard, instead he tried to stand by him. That counts for something.
Bluenorthwest
(45,319 posts)"I believe very strongly that all forms of bigotry and discrimination are equally wrong and should be opposed by right-thinking Americans everywhere. Freedom from discrimination based on sexual orientation is surely a fundamental human right in any great democracy, as much as freedom from racial, religious, gender, or ethnic discrimination.
"My husband, Martin Luther King Jr., once said, 'We are all tied together in a single garment of destiny... an inescapable network of mutuality,... I can never be what I ought to be until you are allowed to be what you ought to be.' Therefore, I appeal to everyone who believes in Martin Luther King Jr.'s dream to make room at the table of brotherhood and sisterhood for lesbian and gay people."
-- From remarks delivered by the late Coretta Scott King, wife of civil rights icon Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., at the Task Force's Creating Change conference in Atlanta on November 9, 2000.
In later years she clearly denounced amendments against marriage equality: ""A Constitutional amendment banning same-sex marriage is a form of gay bashing and it would do nothing at all to protect traditional marriages."
She called marriage equality a civil rights issue when other people, elected Democrats were still chewing their cud.
Response to Bluenorthwest (Reply #228)
Name removed Message auto-removed
EvolveOrConvolve
(6,452 posts)Are you saying marriage has always been between a man and a woman, so it should remain that way?
skepticscott
(13,029 posts)And an opinion on the subject that you're not hesitant to express unequivocally?
The Bible was very clear on slavery too. And it too was accepted as the norm in Western history for many, many centuries. Do you decry the attempts to "rewrite history" on that issue as well?
B Calm
(28,762 posts)gollygee
(22,336 posts)I think everyone is aware that same-sex marriage has not been legal historically, but that doesn't mean it isn't bigoted to oppose it. And the Bible has a lot of issues, bigotry among them.
LostOne4Ever
(9,629 posts)[font style="font-family:'Georgia','Baskerville Old Face','Helvetica',fantasy;" size=4 color=teal]Further, not everyone who does follow the Bible interpret it the same way. Why does their interpretation matter less than others?
Why does the Bible get to define marriage? Marriage predates written history and it has arisen independently in completely different cultures.
What rewriting of history are you talking about? Different cultures have different marriage traditions. Some even accepted same-sex marriage.
How is forcing one's religious opinions on other NOT bigoted? By definition.[/font]
Response to LostOne4Ever (Reply #210)
Name removed Message auto-removed
LostOne4Ever
(9,629 posts)Response to LostOne4Ever (Reply #240)
Name removed Message auto-removed
LostOne4Ever
(9,629 posts)Behind the Aegis
(55,172 posts)
PeaceNikki
(27,985 posts)Your kind aren't welcome here.
Response to PeaceNikki (Reply #242)
Name removed Message auto-removed
PeaceNikki
(27,985 posts)It won't be long.
MannyGoldstein
(34,589 posts)Until a certain politician evolved and took a brave stand on the issue.
Regards,
TWM
Bluenorthwest
(45,319 posts)influence in this Party so you are hardly a constant ally of equality. When straight people make use of LGBT issues randomly for their own agenda's sake, that is not support but exploitation.
In November, Francis was keynote speaker at a Vatican produced conference against marriage equality, among the invitees, Tony Perkins of FRC, boss to Josh Duggar, Maggie Galagher and NOM, the Heritage Foundation, the heads of LDS and Southern Baptist conventions and Rick 'One Little Prayer' Warren. And you promote that, aggressively.
"I understand that the Pope isn't OK with gays, gay marriage, abortion, and married priests. And probably a bunch of other things. But...."
http://www.democraticunderground.com/121880916
So situational messages of agenda are what they are, and they are not what they are not.
MannyGoldstein
(34,589 posts)e.g., http://www.democraticunderground.com/10026192122#post9 and my response.
Bluenorthwest
(45,319 posts)People should read your comments and the sound rejection of them in this thread...this will provide context and definition to your disrespectful refusal to engage.
They should start with #52, a most odious and vile comparison indeed, particularly nasty when used to defend those who voted for Reagan and his AIDS non policy.
Star Member MannyGoldstein
52. Which killed more people?
Reagan's ignoring AIDS, or the insane wars egged on and enabled by Hillary?
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10025941970#post52
Response to skepticscott (Original post)
Post removed
skepticscott
(13,029 posts)But you seem to harbor a lot of hostility about this issue, for reasons the rest of us can only guess at.
Feel free to contribute something more thoughtful, at your convenience.
Orrex
(64,852 posts)I was juror #5.
On Sun Jun 14, 2015, 08:10 AM an alert was sent on the following post:
Whats wrong with you? not getting enough
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=6832996
REASON FOR ALERT
This post is disruptive, hurtful, rude, insensitive, over-the-top, or otherwise inappropriate.
ALERTER'S COMMENTS
"Not getting enough attention at home"? Just a rude, shitty, cheap shot that contributes nothing. If this person found the thread so offensive, no one was forcing them to click on it. They apparently wanted to be offended, and came in just to drop a turd.
JURY RESULTS
You served on a randomly-selected Jury of DU members which reviewed this post. The review was completed at Sun Jun 14, 2015, 08:29 AM, and the Jury voted 4-3 to HIDE IT.
Juror #1 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #2 voted to HIDE IT
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #3 voted to HIDE IT
Explanation: Rude personal attack. DU needs to calm down.
Juror #4 voted to HIDE IT
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #5 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: Yeah, the post is annoying and petulant, but hide-worthy? I'm not seeing it.
It's a lame attempt at personal attack that comes off a ridiculous and weak. Better to leave it so that people can see its silliness.
Leave it.
Juror #6 voted to HIDE IT
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #7 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: I was considering just maybe a hide, until I saw the comments from the person that alerted. Actually made me laugh. The poll is "turd. " This is a democratic board. To think anyone can excuse, in any way, being against equality, is not a democratic trait. It's morally reprehensible. So, turd for turd, to use your word. I think there may be truth to the response
Thank you very much for participating in our Jury system, and we hope you will be able to participate again in the future.
skepticscott
(13,029 posts)I thought you gave a much better rationale for leaving it than Juror 7. They're rather naive if they think that apologists for anti-gay bigotry don't exist on DU. They've shown up right on this thread, in fact.
Orrex
(64,852 posts)Sad that it's so pervasive even here, but we're a microcosm of society, alas.
What really kills me are the bigots who seem to recognize their bigotry, but who seek to rationalize it in some way or another: "He's a hypocrite, so it's ok for me to mock him," etc. Sad.
haele
(14,007 posts)When religion and law were intertwined, the ritualization of marriage was the primary enforcement mechanism - dependent on how strong the influence of religion was on the law. I suspect an authoritarian religion tended to make marriage a holy compact to ensure the social hierarchy will be maintained - your kids won't try to leave the social sphere that they were born into and that you would be less likely to try to be more than what the head of your household is and stray outside your "class". Everyone knows their place.
While less authoritarian religions tended to have a wider concept of what a marriage means and what constitutes a marriage - or who can be married. Secular law turns marriage into a partnership contract to create a household, rather than a religious model for social conformity. So anyone who is able to enter into a contract should be able to establish a marriage partnership, and to apply for dissolution should that partnership not be beneficial to all parties within the household.
Marriage in the US is understood not to be about children, otherwise, there would be stronger laws against divorce when children are involved and against single parenthood, as there are in countries where religion defines law.
If legally, marriage always equaled having children, one might have a case. Since marriage does not equal children, that argument is a non-starter.
Otherwise, no one could legally become married until the woman became pregnant and the father is known.
So, in this and any other country, opposition to same-sex marriage is a religious-based opposition - in effect, religious bigotry - even if your views are structured around how having married parents benefits children.
Haele
hollowdweller
(4,229 posts)I can see how somebody who was very religious might think that same sex marriage was morally wrong, based on their beliefs yet not really hate gay people.
However if that same person is against the government legally recognizing same sex marriages, or performing them, then to me, they are a bigot.
However something that really puzzles me is that many people who are against same sex marriage because of the way they interpret Christianity, don't have any trouble with divorced people getting married. Jesus didn't say anything about same sex marriage far as we know, but he specifically said somebody who got divorced and re married was committing a sin. Yet some of the most anti same sex marriage religious people I know themselves have been married and divorced. So those people I say are both bigoted and hypocritical.
Lex
(34,108 posts)One can have all the religious objections one wants, but people going to the Justice of the Peace to get married is not a religious rite.
AuntPatsy
(9,904 posts)
Cleita
(75,480 posts)what other people chose do do with their lives to fulfill their aspirations to be happy?