UKC

http://thinkprogress.org/lgbt/2014/06/19/3451144/march-for-marriage-religio...

The National Organization for Marriage (NOM) hosted its second annual “March For Marriage” Thursday in front of the U.S. Capitol, a rally with speakers opposing same-sex marriage followed by a march to the Supreme Court. An estimated 2,000 people participated, many of whom had traveled by bus from New Jersey and New York City. After last year’s march, which was held in conjunction with the Supreme Court hearing on the Defense of Marriage Act, NOM attempted to inflate the numbers, but this year’s crowd was smaller than even the most conservative estimates from last year.

Mary from Virginia Beach explained to ThinkProgress that she is a devout Catholic who believes that marriage is a covenant between a man, a woman, and God, and “we cannot change what the Bible defines.” She actually suggested that she would be okay with civil unions for same-sex couples, but she was also concerned that children would read books and learn that same-sex marriage is okay, even though it’s against their families’ beliefs: “Civil unions? What you do is your business, but what you teach my children is a whole different thing.” She added that if she learned that her own children were gay, she would be “disappointed,” and that it would “break her heart” if they got married, because she believes that acting on homosexuality is a sin.

Jasmine came to the march from New York City because she was asked to by her church: “I was told by my church ministry to come out here and support what we believe in, which is a man and a woman to get married and unite and have children… If a man and a man were to get married, that would violate that law.” Even though New York now has same-sex marriage, she believes in “repentance” for same-sex couples and that “God can still touch their hearts and turn them into His steps.”


Both on the dais and in the crowd, religious beliefs were the driving force behind attendees’s opposition to same-sex marriage. ThinkProgress spoke with several members of the crowd to get a sense of why they were participating, and most cited their religious beliefs as their primary motivation. In particular, many were religious leaders themselves or specifically came to the march with a church group. Watch a compilation of ThinkProgress’ interviews from the March for Marriage:

Some said that they believe that there are consequences to legalizing same-sex marriage. A.J. from New Jersey told ThinkProgress that he believes God might flood the world like he did in the times of Noah as punishment for society’s sexual sins: “My rabbi in Brooklyn said that 20 years after the United States legitimizes same-sex marriage and different sexual sins, then the entire country will go into disarray.” He wasn’t sure when those 20 years start, but he was attending the march because he’s concerned the country is “going down the wrong path.”

For others, it was simply a matter of upholding tradition. “It’s not a matter of consequences,” Jack from Baltimore offered. “The problem is changing the definition of a word that has existed forever.” He told ThinkProgress that he defines marriage as “a man and a woman capable of having children” because “I think that’s the way God created us. I think that’s the way it’s been. It’s the way it is universally accepted.”

Emily came from Jersey City, New Jersey because she believes that “homosexual marriage” is “completely immoral and wrong.” She doesn’t want the kids she’ll eventually have to live through this because “you want your society to be the way you are.” Joe rode down to the march with his church from the Bronx. Since New York passed same-sex marriage, he has noticed same-sex couples holding hands in public more often, admitting, “It makes me uncomfortable.”

In addition to religious and moral reasons, some had concerns about health and children. Elsa brought her family from Leesburg, Virginia because she believes same-sex parenting is harmful to children. “Depending on the studies that you’re willing to admit to,” she said, “there have been studies that show how difficult children have it when they only have one mother, one father, or the same-gender. You end up with a misunderstanding of the human person and there’s gender confusion.” She went on to explain that “nature doesn’t agree” with homosexuality, which is why there are “wards full of HIV-positive people and people dying of serious diseases.”

One of the many pastors who attended the march, who preferred not to disclose his name, similarly suggested that “the gay lifestyle is not gay. It’s filled with drug abuse, and violence, and sadness, and unhappiness.” He expects that there will eventually be a backlash against “the gay agenda.”

Right Wing Watch has compiled many highlights from the march’s speakers. Rep. Tim Huelskamp (R-KS) told the audience that “real men” need to stand up for marriage because “your woman, your wife, she needs you.” New York state Sen. Ruben Diaz (D) believes that Satan has run the public schools ever since the Supreme Court ruled that organized school prayer was unconstitutional. NOM’s chairman, John Eastman, drew a comparison between allowing marriage equality in all 50 states and the Dred Scott decision, in which the Supreme Court ruled that African Americans could not be American citizens. And echoing sentiments expressed in the Washington Times supplement promoting the march, Sam Rohrer of the American Pastors Network suggested that legalizing same-sex marriage will “destroy the very fabric of our nation.”

In reply to Timmd:

21st century equivalent of this lot: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/f/fa/Little_Rock_integration_...

In reply to Timmd:

"Some said that they believe that there are consequences to legalizing same-sex marriage. A.J. from New Jersey told ThinkProgress that he believes God might flood the world like he did in the times of Noah as punishment for society’s sexual sins: “My rabbi in Brooklyn said that 20 years after the United States legitimizes same-sex marriage and different sexual sins, then the entire country will go into disarray.” He wasn’t sure when those 20 years start, but he was attending the march because he’s concerned the country is “going down the wrong path.”"

The rantings of a maniac

In reply to Timmd:

The great thing about this story is that only 2,000 of these idiots turned up. In a country with a population of 314 million that's a tiny amount.

In reply to Timmd:

It is a reassuringly small amount. But there are a surprising number of fundamentalist nutters in the USA. A lot of them think their constitution is oriented around Christianity but it's absolutley not. The founding fathers advocated tolerance not bigotry and established a secular country (unlike UK!).

What these 'Christians' fail to acknowledge is that marriage (of any kind) pre-dates their religion. Also (in USA & UK) it's not the church bit that legitimises it, it's the 'civil' part.

In reply to Duncan Beard:

Not that I in any way support these people (far form it), but it always amuses me to see the "fundamentalist" label pulled out when someone opposes gay marriage.

As opposed to when someone believes in a hundred and one other things associated with Christianity, many of which are far more fundamental than the laws of your society. I would say that believing one must live ones life according to the wishes of an omnipotent, omniscient and omnipresent being is far more fundamental than being opposed to gay marriage. Believing in life after death is far more fundamental than being opposed to gay marriage. Believing that your god is real and other people's gods or - heaven forbid - rational, evidence based interpretations of the world are wrong is more fundamental than being opposed to gay marriage.

Religious belief is by its very nature fundamentalism. Being opposed to gay marriage is bigotry.

In reply to wintertree:

Your final sentence suggests that you have no tolerance for those with a point of view different from your own.

In reply to Timmd:

Does Christianity have no other purpose than to provide a focal point for people obsessed with the sex lives of others?

In reply to Tom Valentine:

No it doesn't. If I had no tolerance for other views, I would be trying to suppres people's right to express themselves. I am not. People can have what ever views they want as far as I care.

Your comment, however, suggests that you do not understand the meaning of the word 'bigotry' - almost everything the people referenced in the OP had to say about gay marriage is a textbook definition of bigotry.

My final sentence: Being opposed to gay marriage is bigotry.
OED entry for bigot: Intolerance towards those who hold different opinions from themselves

In reply to Tom Valentine:


It doesn't.

In reply to Timmd:

Funny really. I'm a Christian, and very much in favour of marriage, and I really can't see how gay marriage is supposed to threaten either my faith, or my marriage, or anyone else's.

Perhaps these chaps would do better to protest about world hunger, or drone warfare, or US contributions to global warming.

But I suppose you can lead a horse to water but you can't nudge a wink to a blind man.

In reply to wintertree:

Is it possible for someone to be opposed to gay marriage without being as idiotic in their comments as some of the people in the original post, do you think, or would you rather lump them all in the same category and label them as "bigoted"?

In reply to Tom Valentine:

Sure they can, however only if they can come up with a valid reason. "My sky fairy is going to flood the world because of the gays" is not really a valid reason in my eyes.

In reply to Tom Valentine:


The only grounds I can think of to oppose gay marriage are either bigoted or do not stand up to scrutiny. So no, some may just by dumb instead of bigoted. Perhaps you can share an example of some grounds to oppose gay marriage that are neither?

To be clear I mean "oppose" as in activly oppose, rather than passivley not approving.

In reply to Timmd:

Not limited to the States. I was in Manchester last year when the Pride parade was on, I noticed a small group by Spinningfields with placards quoting bits of the bible and telling the parade they were all going to hell.

In reply to wintertree:

Now that you have clarified "oppose" and "disapprove" I am less worried. Thanks.

In reply to JoshOvki:


It isnt even particularly good from their viewpoint. After all god promised not to do the flooding trick again.

In reply to wintertree:

The point that most people seem to miss is what the notion of marriage is all about - why does society give various advantages to a couple who go through the procedure of marriage? I am not religious and lived quite well in a couple, had three children, without being married, then for various technical and financial reasons started to find that things would be much simpler administratively and financially if we went through the procedure of marriage. This was done in four days using a special licence in Sussex, the only guests being our three children and the witnesses from the registry office - purely because society makes life easier if you do it, a bit of a pain but simple enough in Britain.

Now the question is why? Why have most societies set up such a system? The only reason I can see is to favour a stable relationship which facilitates breeding - humans having a very long period when their children need parental help compared to other animals. So if the fundamental idea behind marriage is a simple biological one to favour the species that rather makes the need for same sex marriages superficial. As the "species" has managed to breed the world into a sorry state do these advantages have any reason to exist? Or, another approach, why should such advantages exist at all? Why not just make the same rules for everybody, married or just living together or single then the whole rather artificial "issue" would fade away?

Religious people could still have their quaint ceremonies if they wanted and then it would be up to each religion to decide if they wanted same sex marriages or not, in much the same way as today they decide if marriages to multiple partners are ok by their god(s) or not.

In reply to Bruce Hooker:

Couldn't agree more Bruce.

In reply to Bruce Hooker:


Humans managed to breed for a long time without it. Civilisations have risen to great heights without modern marriage.

I think the main motivation for the modern, binding man/woman marriage is control. It is another way for the organised religions have taken control away from the people to further both their power base and their reason to exist.

I agree with other things you say. Marriage is a very limited concept compared to the range of loyalties and emotions people have. Having now legislated same sex marriage, it is only a matter of time before further marginalised groups rightly come to the fore to ask why they are discriminated against, in being denied the - primarily financial (inheritance tax, inheritance without a will) - benefits of marriage.

I think that marriage as a legal instrument could happily fade away, with people being free to have commitment ceremonies as they see fit, and not under control of the state, church and council. There could exist separate legal and financial implements to form a partnership that is in the interests of children produced from a relationship.

As it stands marriage is a pastich of history, controlling religions, law, finance etc and does not, it my view, serve any of these things particular well.

In reply to Duncan Beard:



I believe a number of them didn't actually believe in a personal God.

http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Founding_Fathers

In reply to wintertree:

I guess that its a language issue. For me its not important what people believe and I respect thier right to believe in whatever right up to the point where they interfere with the rights of others to do as they wish and be treatsd fairly.

To me fundamentalists are the ones interfering and being a nusiance. That sems to be the general usage but I am not good at language stuff so I don't know if its a correct usage.

On phone apologise for typos.

In reply to wintertree:


Civil marriages exist, you don't have to bring religion into it, we didn't, it all took place in the registry office, pretty quick too. In France the civil marriage is obligatory even if you have a religious marriage too.

In reply to Bruce Hooker:

In England you have to have a civil wedding as well if you are of a different religion.

In reply to Tim Chappell:

I half wish you could volunteer alongside a Christian I've had to do things with regularly and quietly suggest he's talking rubbish in his opposition to gay marriage.

I was a little dumbfounded when I saw about the protest which is why I started the thread. Crazy logic. It makes as much sense as being against mixed race marriages.

In reply to Bruce Hooker:

I think you've probably got things the wrong way round. Some form of institution of marriage is pretty much universal in all societies and cultures of which we are aware. I suspect marriage is the human/institutional manifestation of the evolutionary necessity of bonding between the majority of men and women to ensure the nurturing and survival of their offspring.

In reply to Rob Exile Ward:


There are fewer species that mate for life than are promiscuous

In reply to higherclimbingwales:


Yup, there are also fewer species that feel the need to support "illegitimate" children and have family and tribal assets that need protecting or dividing or inheriting.

In reply to Rob Exile Ward:


Isn't that more or less what I said?

I then went on to wondering if helping human reproduction was still really required and so on. If people are agreed that this is the reason behind the institution of marriage though it rather weakens the case for same sex marriages... without bringing religion into the affair.

In reply to wintertree:



It's a democratic country with freedom of speech isn't it?

And surely, if you apply logic, then when you are dealing with people who consider the Bible - a book which when you apply science, logic, proof etc, starts to take on water quicker than a 1912 cruise liner in the North Atlantic - to be a factual and definitive authority, then logic dictates that they might well have 'negative' views regarding all things 'gay', especially gay marriage.

Personally, I have no problem whatsoever in other peoples sexual proclivity (to be honest, I'm really not interested), and as long as it is consenting adults, then whatever floats your boat, go for it and enjoy.

However, I do find it a bit much, when the gay lobby, class anyone who doesn't feel comfortable, with gay marriage, and voices that opinion, as either dumb or a bigot.

That is just being equally dumb and bigoted.

In reply to Goucho:




Well put... but they won't believe you, "You're either with us or agin us!"

In reply to Goucho:



But, why shouldn't gays and lesbians get to have their union seen as equally 'holy' as straight people.

If they can't get married, doesn't it imply that society (or rather the church) is saying their love for one another isn't equal?

Putting aside whether one thinks any of it makes any sense (from an I'm guessing, a non religious point of view), if one kind of marriage can be holy, why shouldn't religious gays and lesbians have their own marriages seen as holy too?

That's exactly the viewpoint of a lesbian couple in Scotland who wanted to get married by the church they went to, and eventually they could get married, and were both made very happy to be married in the church they attended, and have their union seen as being on an equal standing with straight marriages, and equally 'holy' as they saw it.

It's not about 'You're either with us or against us', it's about having equality on all levels.

In reply to Goucho:


What is a good reason to be against gay marriage, if you find it a bit much when those against it are called dumb or a bigot? Keeping in mind some Christians like Tim Chappell are fine with gay marriage.

Logically, to find it a bit much, there must a good reason to be against it, surely?

In reply to Timmd:


I personally have no problem with it. However, aren't there certain aspects of religious belief and the Bible, which say otherwise?


Quite possibly.


Rome wasn't built in a day



I don't disagree, however, there are lots of religious folk who do.

In reply to Timmd:


It's called religious belief, which is by default hardly logical.

I kind of see what you mean, that when you start trying to apply logic and reason to religion, people can say that it's because of what it says in the Bible, and that it's their faith.

Given how some religious people can be open hearted enough to not be fussed (in seeing that sexuality and gender in marriage are less important than love), and how outside of religion it's the people least at ease with their sexually who are the most homophobic, I do think dumb and bigot have a certain amount of justification as labels, for people who are against gay marriage.

Just my 2p's worth.

In reply to Goucho:

No, it's pretty much the definition of bigoted. You and others may not like that, but it's s what the word means.

Myself, I only consider it a problem when people try and push their more restricted world view onto others, seeking to curb the freedom of others. Let people think what they want, but the state and the law should rise above it and try and treat people as equal as far as possible,

Objecting to the freedom of others because it upsets your world view is bigoted. Objecting to people objecting to the freedom of others is not. If I told someone that being homophobic was wrong I would be a bigot, but if I object to them holding public homophobic rallies that is not bigoted.

In reply to wintertree:


So what you're saying, is that it's OK for gay rights campaigners to hold rallies to promote their rights and freedom to be gay, but it's not alright for religious people to hold rallies to offer a different opinion based on their religious beliefs.

Surely you can see the contradiction in that?

In reply to Goucho:


What contradiction?

The gay rights groups are asking for equal rights to be given to themselves.

The religious rights groups are asking for rights to be withheld or removed from others

Surely you can see the difference in that? Further noone has said religious people can't hold rallies seeking to deny rights and freedoms to others, just that anyone seeking to deny rights and freedoms to others are bigots. If the gay rights people were calling for a ban on heterosexual marriage because it offended their morals, they would be as bigoted as the people protesting against homosexual marriage. If you can't tell the difference there's not much point in carrying on this conversation.

In reply to wintertree:


But some things are not a question of rights, for example a couple of the same gender cannot have children, they cannot fecund each other, so calling for equal rights in this case is absurd. If marriage exists socially to favour procreation then "marriage" between people of the same gender makes no sense. This may be a thesis that is untrue, marriage may be about other things, but it's not bigoted to hold it and express it.

Obviously it is quite possible that any couple, or group of people for that matter, may well be given the same legal and fiscal advantages as those accorded to a breeding couple, and personally I think they should, the population is high enough as it is, why encourage breeding at all? but that is a slightly different subject.

In neither debates there is a reason to necessarily bring religion in, it just happens that many religious people feel bothered enough to publicly push the subject, and also because they have organisational structures to do so, but essentially these questions do not need to be linked to religion, and debating them does not imply being bigoted... however refusing such a public debate most certainly does!

In reply to Timmd:

I despise "reality TV" shows but I couldn't really explain why. I don't think that makes me dumb or bigoted.

In reply to Timmd:

That's a very misleading headline you've used. Anti gays will presumably be anti gay marriage but that does not mean that those against gay marriage are anti gay.

It really hangs on the definition and purpose of marriage. Most societies have some form of "marriage" presumably to identify those responsible for the production and upbringing of offspring when no welfare state existed, and to provide a "financial" framework for such a union. Traditionally marriages were basically economic and dynastic arrangements between families, tribes and people.. Love is very much a modern accoutrement.

On that basis even in societies which accepted homosexuality the need for it to be "legally recognised" was minimal since there would be no offspring and no "family union".

Nowadays we fail to distinguish between the economic/financial and the emotional elements of marriage and since many heterosexual marriages do not intend to produce offspring that key element in the union is no longer key.

It seems to me the main problem is the confusion, at least in the UK, as to whether marriage is a civil affair created for legal reasons to define ownership and division of assets or something else.
Given that both hetero and homosexaul unions can now produce offspring and basically have similar "unions" it seems to that "marriage" should be a civil matter in which both groups are treated equally.

If religious organisations want to have some sort of "blessing ceremony" to consecrate a civil marriage that should be their business and they can choose whom they wish to "bless"

In reply to Postmanpat:

Anyone that is anti gay marriage is anti gay people having the same rights as the rest of us and thinks that gays should be treated differently. That to me is anti gay.

Until the changes you discuss (which seem sensible to me) are made, gay people should have the same right to marry as anyone else.

In reply to marsbar:


No it's not. If one's idea of marriage is that it is a God given sacrement given for the union of man and woman and to legitimise their offspring it is no more anti gay than saying that the Alpine Club is anti canoeist because being a canoeist does not justify membership.

It's about the meaning of marriage not about gays.

In reply to Postmanpat:
While in principle that's true, I think you will struggle to find many opponents who aren't anti-gay too to greater or lesser extent. Normally this seems to stem from religious teaching. If the objection to changing who was allowed to marry was really about children, it would extend well beyond gays. For example, there is little if any opposition to sterile couples marrying.

In reply to Postmanpat:



Well said.

In reply to Postmanpat:


If that was the case, why are they not campaigning for the abolition of civil marriage? Plenty of people get married without involving anyone's God


By definition this is only because the bigoted choose to regard perfectly normal human beings as illegitimate if their parents do not conform to their bigoted views on legitimacy

In reply to marsbar:


But asking religious (especially devoutly religious) people to accept gay marriage, is by default, asking them to change fundamental aspects of their religious beliefs - which are just as important to them, as equality is to gay people.

I'm not saying this is necessarily the correct attitude, but if the gay community wants everyone to understand where they are coming from, then maybe they should also put some effort into understanding where religious people are coming from too.

In reply to Bruce Hooker:


Actually, to hold those views is almost by definition bigoted, and by expressing it they broadcast this to the world.

I don't have a problem with them being bigots, or expressing their bigotry, just with them trying to force it onto the private lives of other people, and it is only at that point I would use the bigot label, out of respect for their own private spheres.

In reply to Goucho:


Where are they being asks to enter into a gay marriage, or to conduct one, or to otherwise accept one into their lives? They are not. They are being petulant because they are not allowed to meddle in the private affairs of people they have nothing to do with. One can see why organised religion does not like the precedent.

Their call for a ban on gay civil marriage has precisely as much credibility as hypothetical members of another religion calling for a hypothetical, nationwide ban on pork products.

In reply to MG:


I disagree that there aren't many opponents of religious gay marriage who are not anti gay.

On your second point it doesn't seem hard to argue that because "marriage" has always been about heterosexuals creating a union and creating offspring there is something "unique" about the union between a man and a woman that is true even if for whatever reason they do not produce children. Obviously it's about religious teaching. It's religious marriage we are referring to!

It's not hard to argue the other way either but then you just get down to opinion on interpretation of religious doctrine.

In reply to Goucho:


If their religious beliefs mean imposing their morals on others, then tough.

In reply to Postmanpat:

>It's religious marriage we are referring to!

I don't think so. Certainly it's not in the UK, and I would surprised if it were in the US.

In reply to Postmanpat:


Well what is unique, other than it being a man and women?

In reply to MG:


Yes it is, but adopting that kind of attitude is demonstrating the same intolerance of religious beliefs, as religious people's intolerance towards gay marriage.

Both sides of an argument need to be understood, not dismissed.

In reply to MG:


Well, see my opening post. I am referring to "religious marriage". Personally I think marriage should be a civil institution open to all sexualities and if religious institutions do not abide by it's guidelines they should not be allowed to conduct a legally recognised "marriage" but if they want to conduct a "marriage " in the eyes of their God so be it.

In reply to MG:


It is the basis for human reproduction and that makes it different even if it isn't always for that purpose. But like I say, it can be argued either way but if a religion wants to argue one way it should be free to do that.

In reply to Postmanpat:


I don't buy that argument, particularly as gays can now have children via various methods. It think the children point is a red-herring used to justify dogmatic religious objections.

But like I say, it can be argued either way but if a religion wants to argue one way it should be free to do that.

Yep no problem with that, and I think the OPs title is misleading.

In reply to Goucho:

The difference is one is trying to impose beliefs on others (intolerance) while the other isn't (not intolerance). No one is forcing the religious to accept the validity of gay marriage* - if Christians want to regard gays as unmarried (as I think they do those married just in civil ceremonies), then fine.

*not quite true I know, after various B&B cases.

In reply to Goucho:

Where is the intolerance to their belief? Where are they people calling for their rallies to be banned? Where are the people calling for their rights to be denied? Oh right, there aren't....

Here we have the fundamental difference. Those calling for a ban on gay marriage are trying to push their intolerance onto others. The gay rights side are not calling for any bans or restrictions on the lives of others. This despite various special rights already conferred on the religious groups (such as their own ability to conduct legally recognised religious marriages apart from civil marriages.)

Do you not understand that there is a line between passively holding views and actively promoting them? One side is consistently and aggressively crossing the line, and it is their actions and not their beliefs that people are intolerant to.

To argue that we should not be intolerant to intolerant actions is simply stupidity.

In reply to MG:


I'm sure many religious people believe that is exactly what the gay lobby is trying to do.

Personally, I am neither of a religious persuasion, or anti gay marriage - as I said in an earlier post, I'm not remotely interested in peoples sexual gender either way - but I think the gay lobby automatically calling religious people intolerant or bigoted, because they hold a different viewpoint, is demonstrating an ignorance as to why religious people hold these beliefs.

In reply to Goucho:


No, but you are demonstrating an ignorance as to the definition of the word "bigoted"

http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/bigoted
"Having or revealing an obstinate belief in the superiority of one’s own opinions and a prejudiced intolerance of the opinions of others:"

Now, both sides may actually be intolerant of the opinions of the other, but only one side is trying to withhold rights from the other, only one side is holding rallies in which the other side are publicly denounced as sinners. I am not actually aware of the gay rights groups having a prejudiced intolerance of their opponents, merely a wish to be protected from their prejudiced intolerance. The examples given in the OP are clearly bigoted actions. No-one has, or is, saying that this is in any way representative of the majority of believers, simply that the ones protesting and trying to withhold rights from others are bigots.

In reply to Goucho:

I don;'t see how they can think that given they have (again) been given special exemption from the law.

In reply to wintertree:


It's called conviction of belief - rightly or wrongly.

In reply to wintertree:


So you agree with that then?

In reply to wintertree:




So you acknowledge that there may be millions of people who are against gay marriage but don't hold rallies denouncing gays as "sinners". They might just believe that God created marriage as a sacrement between man and woman. Are they still bigots?

And describing somebody holding that view as "homophobic" is not bigoted, right?

In reply to Goucho:


Have I ever said otherwise? However, to quote myself "To argue that we should not be intolerant to intolerant actions is simply stupidity."

As with everything there are scales of intolerance. Not liking the views of another group is one thing, working to actively demonise another group, and to restrict their rights, is another.

We are free to call those seeking to publicly undermine the private life of others as unpleasant, narrow minded bigots. It's a damned good thing that we are to - most of those rights were hard won over centuries of progressive enlightenment, and one does not have to travel far before finding a land that is denied this, and I for one know where I would rather live...

In reply to Postmanpat:


If they're going to publicly demonise others, and seek to limit their rights, then YES.


Once again, if that person seeks to publicly demonise them, and seeks to limit their rights, then YES.

But both sides are not publicly demonising the other and seeking to limit their rights, are they? You people and your straw men.

In reply to wintertree:



You are very conveniently conflating "demonising" and limiting their "rights" (as you see them) and completely ignoring the distinction that I made.


Now, try again. People who accuse gays of being "sinners" are demonising them. So lets exclude them and discuss whether people who think that marriage before God is something specific to men and women and, whilst being happy to accept homosexuality as a valid lifestyle, do not think that they can be "married" before God are "bigots" anymore than people who deride them as "homophobic" are "bigots".

In reply to Postmanpat:

When did I say "married before God"? Never. I've been referring to civil marriage. The issue behind the OP is civil marriage.

Neither in the US or the UK has a gay marriage before god been legalised. In the UK I believe it is expressly forbidden under recent regulation (more special treatment).

Now, if the protesters referenced in the OP object to civil marriage being allowed (gay or straight), that is not bigoted. However, to object to the presence of gay civil marriage is bigoted.

If you want to invent the context of protesting against gay religious marriage go ahead, just so long as you understand that you are discussing a currently imaginary context and an imaginary straw man. Just to pre-empt further attempts at imaginary discussions, if some people believe that they are married before their god, and that therefore everyone else is to, and that therefore everyone else should suffer the same restrictions as them, congratulations, they are bigots.

In reply to wintertree:



Well, I outlined my position in my OP and again at 10.07 and in exchanges with MG so you seem not to have read most of what I've written which makes debate rather pointless.

To recap, I think civil marriage and religious marriage should be distinct.

However given that many or most religions presumably do not believe that, is it still your argument that if somebody believes marriage is specifically religious sacrament and that their religion, whilst accepting homosexuality as a valid lifestyle, does not believe that their religion regards homosexual marriage as a valid institution, is a "bigot".

In reply to Postmanpat:


I have, and I assumed you were bringing an imaginary context along to further some agenda of persecution that nobody on this thread has demonstrated by twisting their discussions of civil gay marriage.


If their belief extends beyond their religious grouping to everyone else, and they try and push it to everyone else, then yes.

In reply to wintertree:


Yup in the UK even those religous bodies which would be happy to carry out gay marriages (Quakers and some others off hand) are forbidden from doing so.

In reply to wintertree:


What a bizarre assumption. Actually I can't even work out what you are trying to say it's so odd. What were you inferring?



Hence my point that the conflation religious and civil marriage is the problem and the two should be separated. (sheesh, is that so hard to grasp?)

So,just to be clear, anyone who believes in something that is universally a good and should be applied as such is a bigot?

In reply to Postmanpat:

That for some reason you keep bringing discussion of religious objections to religious homosexual marriage to a thread which is concerned with religiously motivated objections to civil homosexual marriage.


It's pretty hard to grasp because, as various people have pointed out, they are separated, there are no homosexual religious marriages, there are civil homosexual marriages, and the protests and attitudes being discussed refer to bigots objecting to homosexual civil marriage which in no way infringes on their private sphere or rights. These people want to restrict the access of others to homosexual civil marriage. I'll say it even more clearly, they are taking their private bigotry (look up the meaning of the word and give a report to the class) and they are putting it on full display in the public sphere as part of their efforts to control the private life of others by seeking to restrict their access to civil homosexual marriage.


Quite.

In reply to wintertree:


which still don't explain how you inferred I was " bringing an imaginary context along to further some agenda of persecution".

It was only exclusively "concerned with religiously motivated objections to civil homosexual marriage" in your view. It doesn't seem a huge leap to suggest clarifying and distinguishing between different forms of marriage and different forms of objection, unless of course you are in the game of asserting that any dissenting view is bigoted homophobia.


Actually a number of Churches, notably the US Presybterians, accept gay marriage but that is not the point. The 2,000 nutjobs in the OP may have been objecting to civil gay marriage but there may be millions of others who accept gay civil marriage but not religiously sanctioned gay marriage. You seem simply not to be prepared to recognise this and prefer to demonise them all.

In reply to Postmanpat:


How do they manage that? Cloning?

In reply to Postmanpat:
but there may be millions of others who accept gay civil marriage but not religiously sanctioned gay marriage.

There may be, logically, but in fact there are rather few. Take a look at this for example

http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2014/06/19/march-for-marriage-rally-re...

In reply to wintertree:


Then you'll have to give me your definition of bigot and bigoted. (serious question)

In reply to Postmanpat:

Telling other people how to live their private lives, based on your perspective, is indeed bigoted action. Trying to restrict and limit how other people live their private lives based on your perspective is bigoted. Quietly disagreeing with the choices of others, that in no way intrudes into your life, that's fine. Airing your intolerance, hate and discrimination in public: bigotry.

If you were living in a society where women were marginalised and denied equal rights, and there was a religiously motivated group attacking the women's rights movement, would you staunchly defend that group against charges of bigotry?

I have not once accused anyone of homophobia, so it's rather disingenuous of you to suggest that I am labelling dissenting views as homophobic.


Far from it. I have carefully refrained from demonising people objecting to religiously sanctioned gay marriage. I have clearly made the distinction many times. I am not sure why you are so desperate to convince me otherwise. As it happens I also have views there...

In reply to Bruce Hooker:


http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/bigoted

"Having or revealing an obstinate belief in the superiority of one’s own opinions and a prejudiced intolerance of the opinions of others:"

Some people are of the opinion that gay marriage should be legal. I would say that protesting against those people and seeking to have gay marriage banned is indeed "prejudiced intolerance". As well as "revealing an obstinate belief".

In reply to Timmd:

If you take out the bits about God and The Bible from that lot, they actually have very little to say.

In reply to wintertree:

Sorry, I posted that before I'd read down the whole thread, but this definition doesn't really help much as it depends on value judgements, what is "obstinate" and when does intolerance become "prejudiced"?

I won't repeat myself (for once) but I think it is a pity to simplify the question, just saying we want equal rights without analysing what is behind the objective of marriage, civil in particular as I'm not too concerned about what religions do, the various advantages it confers, and why. I grew up in a context of most, or many anyway, people challenging the need for marriage at all, my three children were "bastards" for most of their childhood, like many others I didn't want a church or the state getting involved in my relationships, it was our affair and no one else's, so now seeing so many young and presumably modern minded people clamouring for the right to reinstate marriage leaves me puzzled.

I think I understand it as I've discovered how marriage gives one a more comfortable fiscal and administrative situation, especially in France, and also as death approaches one starts to think of how to tidy the paperwork up but all the same I would have preferred making changes that did away with the advantages of an outdated (in my opinion) institution like marriage rather than the opposite.

But coming back on subject, and still not being able to see how a one gender couple (or triple or bigger group) can make children without outside help, I don't see the overwhelming interest in extending financial and legal advantages to an institution that exists for this purpose. I'm not convinced that saying this makes me a bigot, but I'll read with interest your arguments to prove that I am.

In reply to Bruce Hooker:

I am not saying you are a bigot, and never have. You are not stating categorically that your view is correct, and that others must be denied equal treatment. Everyone holds different views, and the good people will introspectively question those views - not necessarily changing them, whilst the bigots will shout them from a rooftop and try and force them onto the private lives of others.

On the other hand, I think going down the "making babies" line is not a very solid approach, as many married hetereosexual couples can not make babies without either significant medical help and/or genetic material from a third party and/or the loan of a surrogate mother's body. I would suggest viewing marriage as a set of financial, legal and social tools to help in "raising babies", not in making them. After all, making them is where we are the same as every other mammal on the planet (except the echidna) but it is in raising them where human society stands apart.


In my view, when someone starts to try and push their intolerance onto the private lives of others.

In reply to Bruce Hooker:

nd presumably modern minded people clamouring for the right to reinstate marriage leaves me puzzled.

It never actually went away, you know!


advantages of an outdated (in my opinion) institution like marriage rather than the opposite.

Curious to know what you think is outdated about it. A public expression of commitment to each other seems a pretty natural thing to me - it occurs in pretty much all societies in one form or another. And more fundamentally humans have clearly evolved to mate for life (or at least long-term).

In reply to MG:




A quick skim suggests it rather supports my view, that outside the evangelical wing of the Church views are very mixed.

In reply to Bruce Hooker:

Adoption but the outcome is the same. They need some sort of legal structure to clarify their rights and obligations etc as you have somewhat belatedly realised.

In reply to MG:


It doesn't to me (us) as we couldn't give a f*ck about what the "public" thinks of whether we live together of not. We've lived together for about 35 years and didn't need a bit of paper to prove it for much of them. All around I see "married" people unmarrying, and screwing themselves up in the process, some several times so your "public expression of commitment to each other" doesn't seem that efficient!

Let's get rid of marriage altogether and rely on the real commitment to each other rather than an administrative or religious one... It would probably result in more stable families (if we need them), save money on daft wedding presents and ceremonies and enable the religious lobby to go back to baking competitions and charity work like they used to, encouraging them to demonstrate in public is probably not a good idea either, some may get the taste for it again.

In reply to Postmanpat:


But is marriage the best way? It still leaves unmarried "families" in an unsatisfactory situation too. A generalised extension of civil unions would do the trick, but as no one is calling for this maybe it proves that it's not the real objective questions that matter for many of the campaigners?

In reply to Bruce Hooker:


Well OK but you are a little, err, different to many who do care what others (family and friends if not public at large) think. Divorce etc is certainly common but then non-married splits are also common.

You sound a bit Talibanesque with this desire to ban presents and ceremonies - most people enjoy a bit of celebration.

In reply to Bruce Hooker:

A generalised extension of civil unions would do the trick,

That's already happened here.

In reply to wintertree:

You are doing the same thing again and avoiding the point. People can have views on the institute of marriage without wanting to dictate how people live their private lives.




Fair point, although many would and the OP suggests the position is by definition "antigay".


What you seem not to able to acknowledge is that it is very difficult to object only to religiously sanctioned gay marriage rather than gay civil marriage if the two are effectively one and the same. So you seem to have opted to group them together and when I asked you to distinguish and recognise that might be a helpful distinction you replied "If they're going to publicly demonise others, and seek to limit their rights, then YES."

Supposing they are not "demonising", simply objecting?

And supposing they are objecting on the grounds not that gays shouldn't be allowed the same rights as others but that they regard "marriage" as a religious sacrament?

Presumably the simply solution is to explain that as far as the State is concerned it is not primarily a religious sacrament ?

Anyway, don't be shy, spit it out,what are your "views there"?

In reply to Postmanpat:

Yes they can. Those views can still be bigoted (by the very definition of the word) and as I keep saying I couldn't care less until they start airing those bigoted views in public with an intent to limit the lives of other people. So I am not avoiding any point. Other than various people's utter inability to understand what the word "bigot" means.


Which is also a fair point. Presumably these people are motivated by the fact that either their personal views, or the religious views they personally chose to follow, are indeed against the rights of gay people to participate in civil weddings. That is against the freedoms ("anti") of homosexual people ("gay") who wish to enter into a civil marriage. You could argue that they are "pro-religion" with a specific religion, but then that religion is "antigay". A good term for people who pursue such an "antigay" agenda, either through personal or religious motivation, is bigot. Look it up.



Then yes, if their objection is part of an attempt to limit the rights of others, they are airing their bigoted views in public. I've seen very few protests saying "we don't like gay marriage but have no interest in restricting other peoples rights to access it"...

Then they are trying to push their bigoted view of marriage onto wider society. However, as I have also said before, they choose to push the sexuality aspect when attacking civil marriage, not the very concept on a non-religious civil marriage, which does suggest their bigoted views are more motivated by other people's sexuality than other people's religious leanings.


What does that solve? They are already aware of this - it is the law - and still they choose to use their right to free speech to air their views in public, and I choose to use my right to call a bigot a bigot when they do. It is not clear to me why you have such a problem with this?

In reply to wintertree:


So if somebody says that marriage is primarily a religious sacrament and was such should not be open to gays which is the bigoted bit: that it is a religious sacrament, that as such it is not open to gays, or both?


No, they could be against allowing gay people to participate in religious weddings but since religious and civil weddings are not distinct then one becomes the other. Hence my opening point that the problem is the failure to distinguish between the two. What they are doing is not necessarily attacking gay rights but defending the religious institution of marriage a they see it.

Not recognising their right to do this reflects an intolerance towards the ideas of others.

In reply to Postmanpat:


Well it depends if they are trying to deny the right to non-religious marriage to everyone, or just to gay people. Is this a hard concept? If it is the religious sanctity of marriage that they care about, why do they only care about gay couples violating it? Every civil marriage not in the eyes of their god is also a violation of that sanctity but they do not protest about that. Go figure.


Jesus wept man. I could quote myself until the cows come home. I shall just use bold instead.

Seeking to limit the rights of others is actively intolerant.

Show me one place where I have seeked to limit the rights of anyone? All I am doing is labelling the intolerance of others as bigoted. Go and read the definition of the word.

At no point am I calling for the right to protest to be removed, at no point am I calling for the law to discriminate against them, at no point am I suggesting that they are violating the will of a supreme being or going to hell, at no point am I asking for them to be treated less equally than others. I am perfectly tolerant of them, their existence and their views.

I just see their views as bigoted. Because they are.

In reply to wintertree:

Sorry to point out the blindingly obvious here, but the main difference between heterosexual people and homosexual people is...wait for it...sexual preference!

So of course the sexual difference between gay and straight, is bound to be a reasonably big aspect of religious argument against it.

In reply to Timmd:
Interesting how a "March For Marriage" debating topic gets titled as "Anti-Gay Rally In America"

In reply to wintertree:

Well I think you will find many of them are not very tolerant of other transgressions against the sanctity of marriage. It's probably harder to define other "classes" that can be simply defined. Divorcees I guess, but a lot of Churches refuse to marry them. I think historically they resisted them being allowed to remarry. Indeed, they weren't dancing in the aisles at the concept of divorce.

What are you thinking of?


Yes, my careless mistake, in a hurry. I didn't mean you were suggesting banning them just you are "intolerant of the views of others" .


You might want to check the definition of "intolerant"

My point is that that what you are saying to tens of millions of people is, "you known that thing that has been considered right and normal for centuries and was central to Western tradition and society and you were brought up from birth to believe as good and decent: that marriage is a sacrament between a man and a woman? Well, we've decided it's not so if you disagree you are a bigot"

I consider that a rather uncharitable and ,might one say, unchristian, attitude.

In reply to Postmanpat:

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/intolerant

: not willing to allow or accept something
I am willing to allow people to object to gay marriage. I accept that they object to it. I am willing to allow them to protest about how they feel.

: not willing to allow some people to have equality, freedom, or other social rights
I am willing to allow everyone equality of both protest and free speech and right to marriage.

a : unwilling to grant equal freedom of expression especially in religious matters
I am willing to grant them full freedom to do as they wish with regards to marriage. They are free to express their views as much as they want. They can come and talk to me in person about it, they can go down to speakers corner, they can even shout it from the rooftops. I have never called for a limit to freedom of expression.

b : unwilling to grant or share social, political, or professional rights : bigoted
Remind me again which rights I am denying anyone?

: exhibiting physiological intolerance
Anti-gay marriage rights groups do not make me come out in hives, go into anaphylactic shock or puke my guts out. I just checked.

Now go back to people resisting gay marriage on "religious" grounds and see how they do against the dictionary definition of "intolerant".

In the mean time I see nothing in the definition that would class my use of the word "bigot" as "intolerant".


Tough tittie. Just imagine if we had been to "nice" to use the word bigot when referring to tens of millions of people who supported sexism or slavery because it was the tradition in their society and they were bought up from birth to believe it as good and decent?

As I have said many times, as far as I am concerned I only care - and would only raise issue - when the bigotry is exercised in the public domain. What someone thinks in their private life is of no concern of mine. If these people wish to air their intolerance and bigotry in public, we should clearly and precisely call it out as what it is - bigotry - and not masquerade behind other terms.

In reply to Postmanpat:

Could you remind me when the C of E, for instance, banned the Quakers from marrying divorcees though?

In reply to Postmanpat:

Maybe it is a bit misleading, but you never get those who are opposed to lesbian and gay marriage saying that childless couples aren't valid in their marriages, so it does seem to be the fact it's two men or two women that bugs them.

It's called a marriage march, but I can't help wondering if it's a representation of them being against lesbians and gays.

I guess one would have to talk to them to try and work that out...

In reply to wintertree:
The Free dictionary

1. lacking respect for practices and beliefs other than one's own

check

2.not tolerating or respecting beliefs, opinions, usages, manners, etc., different from one's own, as in political or religious matters.

check

Oxford Dictionary

Unwillingness to accept views, beliefs, or behaviour that differ from one’s own

check




So now your equating the traditional belief that marriage should be between people of different sexes with supporting the murder of tens of millions through slavery?

It's good to know that we have those amongst us on a higher moral plane like yourself to put the proles in their place. Have you thought of starting up as a preacher? Fire and brimstone could be just your bag.

In reply to Postmanpat:



Uncheck. I respect their right to believe and practice what they want. I do no respect their attempts to push those onto others. I respect many of the things that guide their faith.



Uncheck. How am I not tolerating it? Where have I tried to stop it? I respect their right to believe what they want, where have I said otherwise? "Respecting beliefs" - I will take that as respecting their right to their beliefs. I do. I have clearly stated this many times.




Uncheck. I accept that they have views, beliefs and behaviour different from mine. I have stated until I got bored of talking to a plank of wood that I even support their right to publicly state their views and beliefs and to behave as they wish, so long as it does not affect the equal rights of others.


No I clearly am not, unless the person reading lacks even basic intelligence. I am saying that their active attempt to suppress the rights of others has parallels to situations in the past, and that just like those it is bigotry - very public bigotry, and I will call such behaviour bigotry. I chose historic examples to try and illuminate for you how using things change, and how people sometimes have to transcend their upbringing to improve society for all. You will note that I am tolerating their public bigotry, I am not seeking to suppress it or remove any rights from the bigots. I support their right to demonstrate publicly their bigotry by trying to control the lives of other people with whom they have no connection.


Once again quite making stuff up that I didn't say. Where have I ever referred to anyone by any social class, let alone the derogatory "prole" or suggested that it is in any way about social class. You are reading things into this at your will.

Ultimately person A feels they have a moral right to tell people B+C how to live their life. If this all goes on in the private sphere, and does not affect the lives of third parties, then person A, upon taking their views public and seeking to push them onto others, no matter what their internal moral justification is, is being a bigot.

I am going to give up now because I've repeated myself enough times. I get that you consider this judgemental and preachy and negative and mean and horrid and nasty. I have clearly stated many times that I don't make this judgement, or care, until those people start to actively preach intolerance unto others and seek to remove rights from others. At that point I will call a bigot a bigot.

Now having considered how you apparently feel about me supporting all the rights of these people whilst labelling them a bigot, consider how you would feel if you were denied the ability to marry the love of your life because an unrelated group of people, with a different belief system to you, feel they have a special right to control your life. Which of these two things would make you feel worse?

There is one thing I am curious about.

There is one clause in the Marriage Act which seems specifically anti-"marriage is for raising a family".
People getting married using this clause are unlikely to be biologically able to have children together, and if they do, the people raising them will not be the spousal unit of mother and father.

I am not talking about same sex marriage.

It is the clause that says marriage can take place without the normal waiting periods if one partner is terminally ill.

To be consistent, should the people campaigning against SSM on the grounds of raising children also campaign to repeal this clause, as it is not what marriage is all about? Or is the complaint really just about the gays?

In reply to Gone:



Yes. Bigots the lot of them.

In reply to wintertree:



You seem to have a problem with the meaning of "respect a belief" and "accept a belief" which is kind of convenient.


But they are not remotely comparable. You used that particular example to try and draw a moral comparison, whether deliberately or not. It's quite possible to argue your case for change without resorting to abuse.


Prole can be used as a term of general inferiority, moral or intellectual which you clearly feel applies to defenders of traditional marriage.


They are not telling them how to live their lives. They are saying that marriage is a religious institution to which religious "laws" apply.


But they are not preaching intolerance or removing rights. They are resisting the extension of a right that has never been held.


I would get to the nub of it and ask what their belief system had to do with marriage, particularly in a disestablished secular society as the US pertains to be and campaign for marriage to be a purely civil affair.
The thing is I wouldn't be calling them "bigots" for holding to their religious views. I would argue
argue that their religious views should not be allowed to interfere with civil laws. That is a different thing.

In reply to Postmanpat:

No I don't. I don't know what you are intimating either. I accept people's right to believe, I respect their right to. That does not mean I have respect for what they actually believe in. How can one have respect for something that seeks to limit the rights of others? Does anybody think that "respecting others beliefs" actually means respecting the actual ideas, as opposed to their right to hold them? If so I hope you respect the core beliefs of Scientilogy and the Flying Spaghetti Monster...


Yes they are. Bigots sought so restrict people different form themselves from having rights, and in the fullness of time they lost. Their bigotry was used as the basis of making some people less than equal, sewing the basis of divisions that went on to be used as justification for worse treatment. You only have to look to contemporary Russia to see the horrors that bigotry over homosexuality can lead to.


I am not attacking the "defenders" of traditional marriage. I am calling people who attack civil homosexual marriage "bigots". In case you still do not get it, defending traditional marriage does not necessitate attaching homosexual civil marriage. Nobody is trying to take traditional religious marriage away, are they? How is it being attacked? They can happily coexist. For most people, they do. For a small minority of bigots they can't accept other people - different from them - having rights as well.


Yes they are telling others how to live their lives - by seeking to prevent them from being allowed to marry.


Some countries and american states do grant that right. Frankly I could care less if they are resisting equal rights being granted, or seeking to strip equal rights, both behaviours are similarly bigoted. But hey, you've got a new point to argue...


Then you need to write to The Dictionary and ask them to grant a special religious exception in their definition of Bigot. After all, the law does.

In reply to wintertree:


Really, is that the best you can do? Sounds like some adolescent magazine... Why on earth can't you live with the "love of your life" (excuse me while I throw up!) without some bureaucrat or man dressed in robes "saying the words" over you? Do you really want to go back to such Victorian clap trap?

Maybe you do but I find it hard to believe that such sentimentalism is the driving force of the majority of those supporting marriage of people of the same gender.

In reply to wintertree:

So you meet the definition of intolerant.

>
Actually you are and you're problem is that you can't see that.

Frankly I'm just bored with people assuming that the moral or ethical code of the era they happened to be raised in has some unique goodness about it that allows them the moral high ground,to impose it on others and dismiss as bigots those who don't agree with them. A curse on all your houses….

In reply to Postmanpat:

Only by your twisted word games.

http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/respect

Have due regard for (someone’s feelings, wishes, or rights)

I have due regard to their views, wishes and rights to think, do and act how they want. I consider their rights to marriage as they see fit, I grant those rights. I give due regards to their wish to limits the rights of others. Having given due regard to their desire to limit the rights of others, I find that wanting and bigoted, and I label it as such. To respect something in light of "respecting another's beliefs" does not mean to put it on a pedestal and venerate it, it means to think long and hard about the fact they believe, and how best to accommodate their belief within the context of wider society. In my view that accommodation stops when they try and use their belief to piss on someone else's parade.

No. I support their right to traditional marriage. I support their right to believe that homosexual marriage is wrong. I support their right to publicly state their views. I support their right to publicly call for the rights of others to be limited. At no point in this do I attack their defence of traditional marriage. At no point to I try to limit their attack of non traditional marriage.

I simply label the attempts of a minority to restrict the rights of another minority as bigotry. This is not an attack on them - I am not seeking to restrict or limit them in any way. It is me passing a moral judgement, from my moral stance, on their attack of non traditional marriage.

If you want to twist your world view so that you see or define this as an intolerant and bigoted view then go right ahead. Perhaps you are awaiting the moment when I see the light, when the realisation hits me and I repent. Bad news - I have respect for people who desire homosexual marriage. I have respect for people who believe they have a god given right to prevent those other people from having their homosexual marriage. My respect for their belief in no way precludes me from taking a moral stance on the issue.

In reply to Gone:

To be consistent, should the people campaigning against SSM on the grounds of raising children also campaign to repeal this clause, as it is not what marriage is all about? Or is the complaint really just about the gays?

In this country at least, there is no law preventing same sex couples getting married.
The only thing they wont be able to do is get married in certain religions.

In reply to wintertree:





Because you happen to cherry pick your definition of "bigotry" to include this and exclude yourself. Funny that.

Presumably this would include the attempts of the SNP in Scotland to restrict the right of Scots to be British, the proponents of higher marginal tax rates to the right not to pay higher taxes, the proponents of smoking bans in pubs to have smoking in pubs banned and any number of originally minority positions? Bigots, the lot of them.

Very depressing, the puritanical zeal of the young.

In reply to Postmanpat:

I am happy to be called a bigot by you, if you wish. Others (if anyone is bothering to read this, highly unlikely) can judge as they damned well please. On the other hand, let's look at yet another definition of bigotry, this time from Wikipedia:

Bigotry is the state of mind of a bigot: someone who, as a result of their prejudices, treats or views other people with fear, distrust or hatred on the basis of a person's ethnicity, evaluative orientation, race, religion, national origin, gender, gender identity, disability, socioeconomic status, or other characteristics.

I do no view them with hate, fear or distrust. When they demonstrate hate, fear or distrust through attempts to limit to the rights and freedoms of others, I call them bigoted. If you really want to define that as bigotry, your logic becomes so circular that you might disappear up your own whatever in a fit of pique.

If in no way seeking to limit the freedoms of anybody, whilst describing as "bigots" those who use their narrow minded beliefs as a justification to limit the rights of others is indeed intolerant and bigoted, then there are an awful lot of intolerant and bigoted anti-racism and anti-sexism campaigners out there as well.

I am not going to reply to the rest of your post because for the life of me I can't figure out what you are wittering about.

In reply to wintertree:

I think we've established that one can find a definition of bigotry to suit any taste. We don't need you to cherry pick yet another.



No, surely not? Impossible!!


No, I suspected as much.

In reply to Postmanpat:

I'm fine by every single one I have found and read. Your argument comes down to saying that not only must I tolerate people whose actions betray them as bigots (I happily tolerate them), but I must not label them as bigots or else I am a bigot.

By every definition I can find the people discussed in the OP are bigots. Not one single definition includes a clause stating that anyone who then applies the term bigot to people it applies to is also a bigot.

It doesn't work like that. Really. It doesn't.

Period.

In reply to wintertree:

Unfortunately you posted "Being opposed to gay marriage is bigotry" which could be construed as a bigoted statement in itself.
You then went on to qualify this statement by explaining that you meant people who are "actively" opposed to gay marriage , as opposed to passively or having private reservations about the subject.
However you look at it, your initial comment was a bit sweeping and probably unfair about a substantial segment of the population.

In reply to Tom Valentine:




By opposed I meant activly opposing, that is what the word means. I totally agree that if people misread that my statement becomes much more sweeping, and so I clarified it rapidly and repeatedly. So it's not however you look at it, it's only if people want to read more into a word than it means. I fully accept that I could have used wording less likely to be misinterpreted.

That's not enough for PMP who apparently believes that even a full public assault on homosexual marriage is not bigotry, because history and religion are an excuse, yet taking a moral stance on their actions is bigotry and intolerance. The irony.

In reply to wintertree:


So for you there is no un-bigoted argument against marriage and homosexual marriage in particular? That sounds pretty bigoted to me, as well as being factually inaccurate..

In reply to Bruce Hooker:


Where did I ever say that there is NO un-bigoted argument against marriage? Or homosexual marriage (as you seem to care about the polarity of the body pars of people you have never met)

What I just said, and you replied to, is that an assault on homosexual marriage is bigotry.

I would view as intolerance: holding public protests against something, asking for something to be banned.

If you have a non-prejudiced reason why people should not be allowed to marry as they see fit, out with it. I'm not expecting any insight beyond witterings about the unimportance of marriage *to you*, and some misguided obsession with the reproductive process. I say misguided because if you define marriage in terms of breeding you insult the many thousands of married couples who undergo IVF or adoption etc.

In reply to wintertree:

I've already given them. Your attitude seems to be that anyone who expresses strong views on a subject is bigoted, yet you don't apply it to yourself.


I don't insult anyone, this sort of dishonest extension is a sure sign that you are short of arguments. It's obvious that there will always be some limit on marriage - I will never be allowed to marry my son (heaven forbid!) and so on. According to the motivations one assigns to the institution of marriage and the pertinence of the advantages they confer it is altogether possible to develop reasonable and unbigoted arguments against marriage people of the same gender which fall outside the reasonably accepted definition of "bigotry".

Your failure to accept such a simple acceptation of the basic rules of democracy and civilized life is puzzling, though alas, not unusual.

In reply to Bruce Hooker:


No. My attitude is that anyone who expresses strong views against the behaviour of others, and who seeks to limit that behaviour of others is a bigot.

My further view is that to label me a bigot, for reaching a moral stance on the bigoted behaviour of others, is stupid circular logic that disappears up its own behind.


So you keep saying, but so far the only "reasonable and unbigoted" arguments you can find surround the production of babies. I assume then that you are also going to apply your arguments to all those who are married but are not producing babies? No you are only going to apply it to homosexuals, and in doing so you reveal your true motivation in all this.

In reply to wintertree:


You've not really thought that though, have you?

In reply to Postmanpat:


Yes I have. Where am I seeking to limit the behaviour of others? Oh that's right, I am not. Just to pre-empt some more silly games I am referring to behaviour of others that does not negatively impact the lives or existence of those complaining, and that exists separately to their private sphere. I didn't explicitly state that in my last post but as your trolling consists of ignoring everything said before I felt it best to spell it out.

In reply to wintertree:


What do you think the laws of the country do and how do you think they get made?

In reply to Postmanpat:


What does the origin of the law have to do with the fact I am not seeking to restrict the rights of others? Is there any sense left in your constant trolling attempt to twist things this way and that?

In reply to wintertree:


So you don't think laws restrict peoples' behaviour?

In reply to Postmanpat:

What does that have do with anything?

I said I am not seeking to restrict the rights of others, but simply taking a view on those who seek to restrict the rights of others (when motivated by their religious and historical views), when those rights of others do not affect them.

I said that my view of their actions is bigotry.

You said "You've not really thought that though, have you?"

I said I had. I said "Where am I seeking to limit the behaviour of others? Oh that's right, I am not."

I have included in this summary all the points I have explained many times before but omitted for brevity from my last message. If I omit any one point from any one post you jump on its absence to twist and troll things in some random direction.


The good ones do not restrict the behaviour of a person where their behaviour does not negatively impact others or society. Such laws that do tend to be viewed as bigoted, or prejudiced, or antiquated, and are being removed.

There is this concept called "equality" you see. People who act to limit equality against others because of historical or religious views are acting as bigots. You may not like this categorisation, but that it just tough.

In reply to wintertree:

Your core argument seems to be that "anyone who expresses strong views against the behaviour of others, and who seeks to limit that behaviour of others is a bigot" Given that laws almost by definition do just that, and given that they are usually created by pressure from interest groups within and outside parliament to do so you have pretty much condemned the democratic process.


Ah, so now you've changed your ground. It is only if views are based on "religious and traditional" grounds that pursuing them are bigoted? Could that possibly be just because you don't respect views based on religious and traditional grounds?


Which was irrelevant to the point that your statement hadn't thought through. You sound a bit paranoid



Ah, so, we've narrowed it down again to "strong views against the behaviour of others, and who seeks to limit that behaviour of others is bigoted" unless in your judgement they don't impact negatively on others or society. I am assuming it must be your judgement because otherwise how else are we to judge? Or maybe it's your view that no laws negatively impact some people?

In reply to wintertree:

I said I am not seeking to restrict the rights of others, but simply taking a view on those who seek to restrict the rights of others (when motivated by their religious and historical views), when those rights of others do not affect them.

It does affect them though.
Their religious beliefs state that they can't accept same sex marriage within their religion. If you therefore forced individual religions to accept same sex marriage, then you would be upsetting those people with those beliefs.
There's nothing stopping people having same sex marriages outside of that particular religion and as far as I'm aware, most religions don't try and stop them. There's obviously individuals within religion who object to same sex marriage and sometimes quite vehemently, but that's totally different and isn't the official stance of the religion.

In reply to Postmanpat:

I have respect for them, and respect them by giving them due consideration - I have respect for those who they wish to suppress, repress and withold rights from - I give them due consideration. Giving respect to both sides, I find those seeking to limit others, motivated by historical and religious prejudice, to be bigoted.

In reply to wintertree:

Are you sure you don't mean you respect their right to the view but not the view itself?

And I'll ask again, since some might think it quite important, how are you judging which laws "do not negatively impact others or society"?

In reply to FactorXXX:



The key part here is within their religion. Nobody is forcing them to accept same sex marriage within their religion. Nobody is forcing their church to conduct the ceremonies (indeed in the UK they are expressly forbidden from doing so), nobody is forcing them to go, nobody is using the name of their god in the ceremonies, nobody is making them whiteness it. The same sex marriages being carried out are civiil marriages.

By all means if they object to civil marriage they can campaign against it. However, they only object to civil same sex marriage.

They are affected only in that they have to share a planet with people granted the right to same sex marriage.

In reply to Postmanpat:

Yes, I am sure. Respecting the belief of others does not mean putting it on an unassailable pedestal, it means giving it due consideration. Ergo, when trying to balance the rights and freedoms of different groups, one respects their beliefs by giving due consideration to the substance, motivation and importance that they attach to those beliefs. That due consideration must be tensioned against the respect given to those whom they seek to deny of rights.

Respeecting a belief does not preclude calling bigotry, bigotry. Consider a far more extreme example, for example the religiously motivated group Boko Haram, who seek to end the education of women. Are we unable to call them bigots because we must respect their beliefs? Are we unable to call the British Nationalist Party bigoted, because we must respect their motivation?


I am not. I am specifically and only discussing the case of Group A seeking to withhold rights to marry from Group B, not because of discussions of impact on society, but because their beliefs say that it is wrong. In this specific case, I judge that allowing consenting adults to marry, regardless of gender, does not negatively impact society by a variety of methods, including giving due consideration to case studies, interviews, the lack of hard quantitative evidence to the contrary, the guiding principles behind the equality movement, thought experiment and noticing that other countries with same sex marriage have not fallen into social anarchy or been biblically flooded.

Well, okay, a few people think society will be doomed because God will flood the planet again for allowing same sex marriage, but this is an excellent example of respecting a belief - for example people with such extreme views were respected by being given due consideration when the law was changed in the UK, and this - as well as many more moderate objections - has resulted in them not being forced to accept same sex marriage within their religion. In fact, they are judged special enough to have special exemptions in the law. They retain some elements of their privileged position.

In reply to wintertree:

The key part here is within their religion. Nobody is forcing them to accept same sex marriage within their religion. Nobody is forcing their church to conduct the ceremonies (indeed in the UK they are expressly forbidden from doing so), nobody is forcing them to go, nobody is using the name of their god in the ceremonies, nobody is making them whiteness it. The same sex marriages being carried out are civiil marriages.

You've lost me a bit.
Are you saying that individual religions can be allowed to not recognise same sex marriages and that you respect that decision?
Or, are you saying that they should be forced to do so?

Think it's only Church of England and Church of Wales that can't conduct same sex ceremonies in any of its premise's by law. Even so, if they wanted to, they could apply for the law to be changed to allow them.

In reply to FactorXXX:

I say that allowing others to have a civil same sex marriage does not affect those seeking to limit their rights.

You say it does affect them.

You say Their religious beliefs state that they can't accept same sex marriage within their religion. If you therefore forced individual religions to accept same sex marriage, then you would be upsetting those people with those beliefs.

I say The key part here is within their religion. ... They are affected only in that they have to share a planet with people granted the right to same sex marriage.

At no point have I suggested that anyone is forced to accept same sex marriages within their religion. That is not a matter for me, that is a matter for the followers of that religion.

Seems pretty clear to me. Perhaps I should revise my statement: "Allowing others to enter into same sex marriages does not materially affect those whose religions beliefs do not support the action".

As I said the only real affect on them is having to share the planet with people whose lifestyle choices do not agree with their faith. If that makes them angry, so be it - after all these christians share the planet with far more people who have far larger divergences with their belief than the gender of the person they marry.

In reply to wintertree:

>
No, it means understanding that it may be a reasoned and valid alternative view, not just "bigoted"


But you said that "strong views against the behaviour of others, and who seeks to limit that behaviour of others is bigoted….. unless in your judgement "they don't impact negatively on others or society".
What's the point of asserting that as a principle and then saying you don't make a judgement except in the one specific case of same sex marriage? It's not much of a principle in that case is it?

So given that lots of laws negatively impact certain people or groups how are you distinguishing, or are you now saying that this you are only applying this process in the case of the discussion of gay marriage?

In reply to Postmanpat:


No, it means giving it due consideration because of its importance to those people.

I do also understand that it may be a reasoned and valid alternative view, not just "bigoted". As I understand this, I read into it, I listen to every side of the argument, I think long and hard. I do all these things before reaching my moral stance. After doing all these things, my moral stance remains that there is not sufficient evidence to support them trying to force their view onto others, by restricting the rights of others, and that in trying to do so they are acting as prejudiced bigots.

In reply to wintertree:



Lol…..

Lets try again: you said that "strong views against the behaviour of others, and who seeks to limit that behaviour of others is bigoted….. unless in your judgement "they don't impact negatively on others or society".
What's the point of asserting that as a principle and then saying you don't make a judgement except in the one specific case of same sex marriage? It's not much of a principle in that case is it?

So given that lots of laws negatively impact certain people or groups how are you distinguishing, or are you now saying that this you are only applying this process in the case of the discussion of gay marriage?

In reply to Postmanpat:


Congratulations, you're a very funny troll.

In reply to wintertree:


I note you're avoiding the question……...

In reply to wintertree:

Perhaps I should revise my statement: "Allowing others to enter into same sex marriages does not materially affect those whose religions beliefs do not support the action".

So in essence, you are criticising a small minority of 'militant' religious people who are vocally saying that same sex marriages shouldn't be allowed full stop and that you have no problem with organised religions not allowing/recognising them as long as they allow them to get married elsewhere without criticism?

In reply to FactorXXX:


That's what I have been sating all along.

In reply to wintertree:


That's what I have been sating all along.

So what's everyone arguing about?
Surely even UKC couldn't generate a thread of over a 100 posts that is basically about the definition of 'bigot'?
Then again...

In reply to wintertree:


So, to conclude: your argument seems to rest primarily on the basis that those seeking to resist same sex marriage are restricting the behaviours of other people in a way which is negative for those people. Oh, and this is wrong because it is they, those resisting, "believe". Is that correct?

This you regard as a guiding principle but you are not willing to divulge how this particular case differs from the thousands of other laws which impact other people negatively or the many pressure groups to influence the law by people who "believe' they are right.

In reply to Postmanpat:
So, to conclude. You are incapable of understanding the meaning of the word bigot.

Anyone who seeks to control the private life of others due to their subjective, non evidence based belief in the moral superiority of their view point is being bigoted. I suspect most of the pressure groups you have suddenly pulled out - in yet another attempt to deflect the conversation - are motivated by power or money, but if they seek to restrict freedom in the private lives of others because of their belief in their moral superiority then yes, I would label that as bigoted.

Let's look at your sudden fascination with laws. Of course a law may restrict the rights of others. A good law does this based on objective studies and criteria. A bigoted law does it based on subjective moral opinion. In this case objective criteria show that people want homosexual marriage, and that this does not objectively hurt anyone else. (other than those who seek to go out of their way to be offended, and thankfully their sway on the law is decreasing as their subjective need to control others is de-prioritised)

Before you abuse the word irony to suggest I am in an ironic position, I am not seeking to control anyone or to limit or rescind freedoms from anyone, I am not intolerant of their beliefs - I support their right to believe as they wish. I have respect for their beliefs - I do not seek to force force gay marriage upon them or their religious institutions. My respect for the rights of others leads me to a line beyond which their attempts to hurt others by denying them rights becomes bigoted.

In reply to wintertree:


Your "unchecking" of yourself against the definitions quoted above was entirely self serving and unconvincing so I ignored it. Cherry picking your definitions doesn't make other definitions wrong however much you would like to think it does.

>
Quite a leap of logic that, since I haven't cited any particular pressure groups. The idea that this is some sort of diversionary tactic seems to reflect your utter blindness to the implications of your own arguments.
So, you now seem to have backed down from your earlier assertion by narrowing it down to laws that govern "private" behaviour based on "belief in moral superiority"
Since almost by definition morality cannot be evidence based, are you simply arguing that the State should have no control over "private behaviour" or that at least nobody should campaign for it to do so?



Sudden fascination? You are aware marriage is governed by laws and that's what we've been discussing?

Just to clarify, your definition of what constitutes "objective criteria" to justify a law is that most people want it. Can we therefore assume that minorities cannot campaign for anything, particularly on moral grounds, because there is not objective criteria to support them? So employment equality and gay rights, which were for a long time minority viewpoints based on a moral position were presumably at least invalid if not "bigoted"?

In reply to wintertree:

So basically you contest any form of active democracy, I imagine you accept voting even if this too consists of imposing one's candidate on others but any active politics, demonstrations, lobbying, petitions which seek to impose one group of people's views on the population as a whole is not on, it's "bigotry".


You seem to think that I am presenting the arguments myself but the point in debate is whether your affirmation that all those against same gender marriages are necessarily bigots, that's what I contest. As for giving non-religious arguments myself there seems little point as you don't seem to get what I've said already!

Coming back to basics I think that any debate on this subject can only make sense by first having a critical and analytical discussion about what marriage is, why it was invented and whether these motives still hold up today. You seem to be locked into some sentimental, "Love Story" vision of what is, after all, a major social institution, and refuse to even bother looking at the underlying non-religious reasons for the existence of marriage.

It goes without saying that you refuse to look on religions as products of history, politics and social pressures, that what they stand for has as much to do with the social conditions of the past and present and that the rules they have fixed are those of the ruling factions as it does with any strictly religious aspects... the views defended by religions are to a certain extent the reflection centuries of history and social struggle, and may contain valid elements as well as bad ones.

In reply to wintertree:

In answer to the question you deleted: of course I'm pro same sex "marriage". I said so in my OP of 9.04 yesterday and again at 10.07.
I am against arrogant "progressives" assuming the moral and intellectual high ground as justification for changing the definition of" marriage and abusing those who defend the existing definition.

In reply to Postmanpat:
I deleted it as I couldn't be bothered with this. Someone has to stop. There is no one definition of marriage, not thought all the cultures past and present.

If you regard me bringing the term "bigot" out for those who use their perceived moral superiority to activly try and limit the rights and freedoms of others, as abuse, then I feel genuinely sorry for you.

Yes, I pass a moral judgment on those people who use their perceived moral superiority as a motivation to denigrate others, to seek to limit their treatment below that of others. Call me a bigot if you want. What bigot I am, that I support their right to explain their views and to protest. How intolerant I am that I state they can do as they please. How un-respectful I am of their beliefs, by stating that I see no need to force them to change their beliefs, or to accept other peoples wishes within ther religious institutions. I am so intolerant of their beliefs that I would defend the right of their religious institutions to - within those institutions - do as they please.

If only all bigots were like me then we wouldn't have anyone telling others that they are not worthy or allowed equal treatment.

If you honestly expect me to have a sudden revelation and to acknowledge my position as abusive, then I have news for you.

In reply to wintertree:



No, I'd thought of got that. Tootle pip….

In reply to wintertree:


So everyone should have the right to equal treatment? So why can't I go out and climb the Pear buttress on Mont Blanc? Or why can't all people have the right to be surgeons? Isn't it there right too? Or women compete alongside men in most sports? It's ridiculous to simplify this sort of question as you do.

In reply to Bruce Hooker:

So why can't I go out and climb the Pear buttress on Mont Blanc?

You can (hope it goes well)


Or why can't all people have the right to be surgeons?

They do assuming sufficient skill - no different for men women gays short people etc.

Or women compete alongside men in most sports?

They should be able to.

In reply to MG:

But in all three cases most people are simply not capable of doing them, that's the way they are either physically or mentally. Equal rights don't make equal abilities. It's something most people come to terms with, others don't and live a life of frustration, which is a pity.

In reply to Bruce Hooker:

Lots of straight marriages don,t produce kids, many gay ones do. So does that invalidate the straight childless marriages?

In reply to Rebecca V.:


I'd be interested to know how "gay" marriages do it! Unless you mean gay in the literal sense. Of course it doesn't invalidate marriages without children, why should it... that's a bit of a red herring that keeps cropping up, don't quite see why?

The provision of a stable (theoretically) environment and financial and legal help for child bearing is just an example of what could be what's behind the existence of marriage or similar arrangements in most societies, it's not the only one. It was given to try to show (with little success) that opposition to same sex marriage is not necessarily based on religious grounds and also to attempt, again with little success, to show one poster that those manifesting their opposition are not necessarily bigots. It's a long thread to read all through it's true.

In reply to Bruce Hooker:

I am not saying all reasons to oppose it are bigotry.  On the other hand I would argue marriage is more about raising children than having them, after all raising this requires more work and commitment. 

I am saying people who seek to deny the right to mary others on their religious grounds, not necessarily shared by the others they wish to restrict, are biogots.

Nevertheless whilst supporting their right to believe, and to protest, and giving due consideration (respect) to their beliefs - by supporting their right to remain protected from having to accept gay marriage within their religion, one poster labels me a bigot whilst stating that those who seek to deny rights to others are not bigots.

In seeking to pass a moral judgement on me they fall under their definition of bigot (which they apparently find so anhorant), but not under mine. For the record I am happy to be morally judged by others for daring to take a view, so long as they do not seek to interfere with my rights. I am utterly unable to comprehend the warped and twisted thinking that labels me a bigot for taking a passive moral stance, but not those who use their moral stance to try and activly deny rights to others.

In reply to wintertree:
Ah, you're back....


It's calling them bigots that reveals your state of mind.


"Bigotry",despite what you seem to think, is not dependent on actions. It's a state of mind which, as it happens, you have revealed by your actions.

You are of course trying on moral grounds to deny these people their right to maintain the widely accepted definition of marriage aka, you meet your own definition.

In reply to Bruce Hooker:

Adoption, insemination, surrogacy. Same way many straight couples who are not fertile as a couple produce children. Then as has been pointed out comes the important part of raising the child.

In reply to Postmanpat:
You just don't give up.

You do realise that actions are a consequence of a state of mind? Either they are mindless in their actions, or there is a state of mind at play. I am specifically referring to those whose motivation is their religious prejudice.

If someone was objecting out of a desire to maintain the status quo for no reason other than their mindless unquestioning preference for the status quo, I would not label that bigotry. The fact remains I am referring to those who - because of their moral stance - seek to restrict the rights of others. That you can not call those actions bigoted, or call their moral stace driving their actions biogoted, despite your rapid attempts to convince me that I am bigoted is what mystifies me.


They have a right to try and maintain the status quo. I have never sought to deny them that right and you are simply being a liar to say otherwise. I am also sick of your assumption that the right of one group to regulate the private lives of others is anywhere near as important as the rights of others to an equal, private life. If you want to say that in supporting equal rights, I become bigoted because in doing so I deny some their right to meddle in the private affairs of others, you have developed some more circular logic that mystifies me.

Let's see if once again you have to try and belittle me for daring to take a view that is different to yours, and what judgement you pass on me, despite the fact you consider my doing so to be bigoted.

If I accepted your definition of bigot, I would have to consider the views of everyone who dislikes homosexual marriage on religious grounds as bigots, not just the very small minority who activly seek to prevent or deny others access to it. It mystifies me how you can not do this, unless you grant people an exemption from being called bigots because of their belief, yet feel free to attack me repeatedly.

As it is I only label that very small minority as bigots. I am not the only person, in this thread or of it, to do so. If you want to belittle me once more then feel free, you can continue to show how you - by your very own definition - take a bigoted view of my moral stance. Belittle me some more, make another agist statement about the young, accuse me of what you want.

Someone who has religious views against gay marriage, and is motivated by those views to seek to deny rights to others, is a bigot.

In reply to wintertree:

Of course but obviously that was not my point. You have said that they are bigots because they act on their state of mind, but whether they act or not is irrelevant. As it happens you and they are acting so the distinction is not relevant anyway.


So your moral stance which dictates how people should behave is not bigoted but theirs is not? How so?



You don't appear to understand the difference between private and public. One of the key elements of marriage is that it is a public declaration and record of a legal relationship. What people do with whom at home is private.


I'm just trying to understand how you reconcile the contradictions in your position.

In reply to Postmanpat:

Liar. I have never dictated how people should behave. I have - repeatedly - expressed my support for them to be allowed to behave as they wish.


Pedant. I understand just fine. Two consenting adults, two consenting witnesses and one or two consenting officials is pretty private. At the end of the day all that changes in the public sphere are a few words on paper. A lot more changes in the private sphere of two of those consenting adults.


And I, you. At least I am smiling to myself that you, in taking a negative moral stace on my moral stance, are satisfying your interpretation of bigotry.

In reply to all:

See - an argument about chopping up a bench isn't looking so bad now, is it? !-)

Martin

Ps humans think bad thoughts, bigots do bad things.

In reply to wintertree:


No you haven't. You've said they should accept your preferred definition of marriage.


You don't appear to understand the public nature of marriage, not least the change in the legal implications of the relationship.
What necessarily changes in the private sphere except that they stop having sex and one starts nagging?


It's not my definition. I couldn't find a definition that required action as opposed to a "state of mind" . Maybe there is one but it would be an unusual one.

In reply to Postmanpat:
You lied by saying I want to dictate their behaviour. I do not and have clearly explained this. Behaviour is actions, I defend their right to act as they want, and to behave as they want.

You try and twist this by saying my asking them to accept the rights of others is "dictating their behaviour". It is not. I do not even ask them to accept the rights of others, they can not accept the fact the state has granted gay marriage rights all they want.


Indeed. However I refrain from judging as bigoted a state of mind (I am not open or tolerant to gay marriage because of my religious views and my religiously informed state of mind) because I feel the need to tread lightly and be moderate. If you accept this definition, how can you not apply it to people in that case, yet apply it to me? Especially as in reaching a "state of mind" about me based on my views you are yourself becoming a bigot?

In reply to wintertree:


No I didn't. I said your moral stance dictates how.(...you believe...).people should behave" meaning your views originate in your personal morality


First sentenceSee above.
Second. I think you need to rewrite that.

(I am not open or tolerant to gay marriage because of my religious views and my religiously informed state of mind) because

But earlier your objection to peoples' stance on same sex marriage if it was based on morality.
Is it morality or religious based stances you are critical of or both?

In reply to Postmanpat:


I am not critical of either stance, I am only critical of those who seek to limit the rights of others based on their moral or religious stance. I am grateful that you are finally restricting yourself to calling me critical, and not saying I am trying to "dictate the behaviour" of others or other such twisting of my view point. Big step. Soon you will be able to notice that I welcome all stances, and only criticise when people use their moral stance as the justification for their attempt to limit the equality of others by limiting their rights.

I am fascinated that you seperate religious stance and moral stance. In my experience, religious learning and belief goes on to inform a moral stance. The two are not easily separable. You could have a counter argument that someone attacks gay marriage because it is different to the status quo of their religion, but a) as I have already said, that kind of unthinking/automatic defence of the status quo is not bigotry and b) if you look at those activly protesting, such as those discussed in the OP, it is not the status quo that is motivating them but outrage of their religiously derived morals.

Just because someone's morals derive in whole or in part from their interpretation of religion does not change how I view them when they activly seek to restrict the rights of others.

In reply to wintertree:


Regarding "dictate their behavior":read more carefully. I simply clarified the meaning of my earlier sentence because you apparently misunderstood, and still misunderstand, it. I didn't change it.



Come on come on, keep up at back. Religious belief will often inform a moral stance, but as any atheist will tell you, morality is nor exclusively dependent on religious backing.

Why do you keep referring to things based on either religion and or morality and then say that "does not change how I (you) view them".Previously you seemed to say it did. Which is it?

In reply to Postmanpat:

Once again you take something I say and try and twist it into something much more extreme. I did not say that morality is exclusively dependent on religious backing.

I said religious learning and belief goes on to inform a moral stance. You will note that I said "inform", not "exclusively determine". You can tell the difference, right? I am not sure what your endless nit picking over "religious stance" and "moral stance" is all about, but it seems to me that to deem anything wrong and worthy of ones active effort to prevent it, that sense of "wrong" must derive from morals. Now I don't give a flying f--k if it religion, introspective thought, out right prejudice or a bolt from the blue that leads someone to consider something morally wrong. I don't care. You can argue the toss over trying to separate religious motivation and the moral stance - it does not matter.

Once someone uses that moral stance to seek to treat some people less equally than others, I am going to reach my entirely passive moral stance on their actions.

I am always open to being presented with objective evidence that their moral stance is in the interests of society as a whole and/or the individuals they seek to control, but to date I have not seen compelling evidence, and if someone did try and present some I would give their views the same due concern (respect) that I gave to the views of the protestors described in the OP.


I did and I again concluded you were simply baiting. I have never tried to dictate anyones behaviour. Unless by "read more carefully" you mean "ascribe totally different and irrational meaning to what I wrote".

Some people have to life with the fact that other people are allowed to get married regardless of their gender. They have to live with an awful lot of other things happening in the wider world that also go against their beliefs. I have not specified anything about how they should react to this, how they should behave in light of it. I have actively stated that I support their right to respond and behave as they see fit. That sounds exactly *unlike* dictating their behaviour.

Having to live with other people doing things that have no effect on you what so ever, other than giving you cause for moral outrage, is an every day part of life for many different people with many different moral codes and religions.

Most of them manage to accept this and not campaign for the rights of others to be limited.

In reply to wintertree:



So, that was my point which you finally seem to be realising. Your stance is based on morality as much as theirs. So your repeated criticism of their position being based on morality, or religion, are irrelevant.

I don't know what you mean by a "passive moral stance". You are actively opposing their position and supporting same sex marriage so you are not "passive". Arguably they are the passive ones in simply defending the status quo against calls for change.


Well you clearly haven't since you can't apparently tell the difference between "your moral stance dictates how you think people should behave" and "you want to dictate how people should behave". If you either can't see the difference or think it is "nitpicking" I can see why your thinking is so woolly.




So far you've argued they are "bigots" because they are 1) in a minority 2) base their views on morality 3) are active not silent 4) are wishing to control peoples' private lives 5)are in favour of limiting peoples' "rights".
Any others I've forgotten ?

1,2 and 3 are pretty much the basis for any campaign for change in democracy so invalid criticisms.y4 is not really true and anyway the law controls peoples' private lives in other ways already, so really you are left with 5.
It is simply your moral view that 5 trumps any other right, duty, norm or moral imperative in society. As it happens I tend to agree it generally does
but it is not necessarily a universal truth and to weigh other imperatives in the balance and reach a different conclusion and argue the case is not bigotry.

In reply to Postmanpat:

I have always realised this. Because I realise many people are different, I do not seek to force others to follow my views, and I am happy for everyone to express theirs. As I have said before, if this makes me a bigot in your eyes then it is a shame all other bigots are not so moderate and accepting.


I am not criticising their position. I support their right to their position. I am not criticising the fact their position is derived from morality or religion.

Do you not understand that I am not criticising them for deriving their views from morality or religion? This pointless discussion kicked off because you wanted me to separate those from, e.g., views derived from an attachment to the status quo. So I did. So now you say I am criticising them for deriving their views from morality or religion. Another example of the circular logic of a dedicated troll.

I am criticising their actions taken from their position. There is subjectivity in their actions, in their motivation for their actions, and taken as an inseparable ensemble I find it bigoted.


I can tell the difference. "you want to dictate how people should behave" is something you have repeatedly and falsely accused me of. "your moral stance dictates how you think people should behave" is something you have just introduced to this conversation. I am happy with that as a definition, although *my* moral stance on this issue does not dictate to me how others should behave so please do not apply it to me. I understand well how the moral stance of some people dictates to them how they think other people should behave.

Can you tell the difference between "dictates to them how they think other people should behave" and "makes them go out and actively seek to make other people behave that way" - the later being the thing I find bigoted?


It is because they attempt to do 4) and 5) using 2) whilst using 3) to promote non-equality.

Regards 1) the fact they are in a minority, I don't care. It could be a majority, they would still be bigoted when they use their morality to try and control other people by limiting their rights. I have recently used the term minority because I have been at pains to point out to you that it is only a small group that I am reaching my negative moral stance on, as you were earlier looking to expand my views in all sorts of rabid directions. Surprise, surprise you take that statement and twist it round to ascribe to me something I never said. You like that game.

I am going to bow out of this futile exercise now, happy in the thought that you continue to make a negative moral stance on me for forming my passive, tolerant, non-limiting but negative moral stance on others. Alanis Morissette could learn a thing or two from that.

In reply to wintertree:


Is that from personal experience? In your profile photos you look like a man, excuse me if it's not the case, helmets do unisex things.

In reply to Rebecca V.:


But they can't do it without help from someone of the other sex, can they? I don't think cloning is allowed.

In reply to wintertree:



We've been through this before. Supporting their "right to their position" is not the same as "not criticising their position". You have described them as "bigots" on the basis of their position aka.you have criticised their position and you specifically said that this partly because it is based on morality, e.g.." I am only critical of those who seek to limit the rights of others based on their moral or religious stance" .




You seem to have been desperately rowing back since Sunday when you told Bruce "to hold those views is almost by definition bigoted, and by expressing it they broadcast this to the world." Yet now it is the actions not the views that are the problem.


Where did I say "you want to dictate how people should behave?" This seems to be a figment of your imagination.
You now say that your moral stance "does not dictate to me how others should behave" but you have already acknowledge that your stance (which is that these people are bigoted) is "based on morality as much as theirs". Are you pretending that regarding them as "bigots" does not mean you think they should behave differently or is there some other explanation for this apparent contradiction.


Yes, but the discussion was about " people who think that marriage before God is something specific to men and women and, whilst being happy to accept homosexuality as a valid lifestyle, do not think that they can be "married" before God "
Nothing about what they do about this view.


So you abandoned 1 and 2, having been the person who raised them. 3 is only important to you because of 4 (which is invalid anyway) and 5,but apparently 3 is not important if, like you, you support change.
So, like I said, it all comes down to your belief that the morality of 5 trumps all.

Anyway, don't take it personally. I'm not suggesting you're not a perfectly reasonable person, just wrong about this The end.

In reply to Postmanpat:

On the basis of their action taken from their position. I have decided that you can't possibly be so stupid that you still keep conflating the two.


E.g. 20.07


Perhaps you view a moral stance as giving you the right to dictate behaviour to others, and are phrasing a more general enquiry based on that extreme belief, but I for one do not consider that my moral stance gives me the right to dictate behaviour to others.


Almost. I've been at pains to point out I don't actually care or judge until they take actions to restrict the rights of others or denigrate others. Read in to all that what you will.


No. Their existence as a minority is not something that I felt makes them bigoted. Calling them a bigoted minority does not imply that I do.


No, it all comes down to my interpretation of a combination of factors that are inseparable, leaving me quite clearly to view them as bigoted. You can argue that it only applies to "marriage before god" but if they reach out to define all marriages as before *their* god, and then seek to prevent others having gay marriage because of* their* insistence that *their* definition of marriage, and *their* chosen god, apply to everyone, it just reinforces their bigotry.

Let's look at the OP's quote:

*their* rules, *their* god, *their* definition of marriage, judge others, protest to seek to denigrate others and to try and influence others to limit their access to equal rights.


Another one from the OP:

That's clearly not bigoted, but I am clearly bigoted for suggesting it is. If you say so.

In reply to wintertree:


No, as you said, "to hold those views is almost by definition bigoted" . Are you claiming this reallymeans "to hold these views in itself is not bigoted" ? !


I said "your moral stance which dictates how people should behave"


I keep looking and cannot find the words "you the right to dictate".

The moral stance informs (or dictates) your view of how people should behave is not the same as "you dictating".

Got it? Sheesh…...



No but saying "I simply label the attempts of a minority to restrict the rights of another minority as bigotry" implies that something about being a minority contributes to "making them bigoted" or you presumably wouldn't have used the word.


Why on earth would you think five separate factors are inseparable just because you somewhat carelessly lump them together?


Let's not look at the OP's quotes because we defined about 200 posts ago that it was not the group in the OP we were discussing.


But you also said you were happy being called a bigot by me so cheer up, be happy!

In reply to Postmanpat:


Those two statements are not mutually exclusive. Nobody is or is not anything - everything is a sliding scale, and it is clear that where anyone labels another a bigot is different on that sliding scale. The problem I have is that your scale is not sliding, it is irrational.


You are still not getting this point, perhaps we have cross purposes on "dictate" but my moral stance does not give me a view on how other people should behave. I understand that different people are coming from different origins, and behave differently. As I have said, they can behave as they damned well want, but I will take a view that - in the specific case where they use the religiously motivated morals to publicly campaign against gay marriage - that they are being bigoted. I am not telling them not to be.


4 as far as I am concerned. Are you saying that cause and effect are fully separable, and that any complex human behaviour can be decomposed into little, separated boxes each of which can be weighted and measured independently? I thought you wanted peoples motivations to be considered when judging their actions...


I am. It makes me very amused that you are taking a moral stance and calling me bigoted for my taking a passive moral stance that others are bigoted, for their active moral stance that seeks to dismiss and/or restrict others, as there is either the irony that you can do this without finding the original group bigoted (for some reason the fact their views derive from religious belief somehow exempts them) or that you are defining yourself as a bigot by your logic.

As I said, Alanis Morrisette could learn a thing or two from that.

In reply to wintertree:


Really? I 'll repeat them just to confirm.
1) "to hold those views is almost by definition bigoted" .
2) "to hold these views in itself is not bigoted"

I am sure I have missed something: maybe the "almost" or the "by definition" or "in itself" but please clarify. What is the exact point in your sliding scale where they are not mutually exclusive?


So when you say someone is "bigoted" it's not a criticism implying that it's an inappropriate way to behave and an alternative might be better? "Bigoted" in your view is a pretty neutral description? It could even be a kind of encouragement to keep behaving in that way? Rightyho…..
Sort of begs the question why you keep on denying you are "bigoted".


I am arguing that in this case there are a number of causes and positions and actions that can be separated and analysed on their own.


Actually what I'm doing is defining us all by your logic……..

One could of course argue that both they and each of us have conflicting but reasonable and not bigoted opinions.

In reply to Tom Valentine:




People who are against same sex marriage seem to be against it because it goes against tradition, and because of what it says in their religious book. The inconsistent part is that the same people don't agree with stoning adulterers, or that it's wrong for men to masturbate, or 'spill their seed'.

Given that there's a selectivity about what the people against SSM say is important in their religious books, does this not make it a form of bigotry, in them saying something like 'Well, times and practices do change, so we wouldn't stone people any more, and straight couples who don't have children are still valid in their marriages, but people of the same sex, no way, even though we don't believe in everything that's written in our religious book, like the stoning of adulterers'?

They 'choose' to be against SSM , so it's not down to them just following what's in their religious books, otherwise they'd still be advocating the stoning of adulterers. If they can interpret the Bible to not believe in stoning people anymore, or all the other bits and pieces from past times, does it not qualify as intolerance to not interpret the Bible to allow same sex marriages?

With intolerance being a part of bigotry, can you explain why they don't qualify as bigots..surely saying same sex relationships aren't equally holy (ie valid-good) is something which qualifies one as being a bigot?


Within the context of their worldview, they're not placing all relationships on an equal level of validity, they're saying only the straight ones are good enough.

This sounds similar to bigotry to me, given their selective interpretation.

Why shouldn't religious lesbians and gays be able to get married if people aren't stoned for being unfaithful anymore?

It's disingenuous to say it isn't bigotry to say same sex relationships aren't as valid or good or worthy, which is what it amounts to when people selectively interpret things to exclude them.

In reply to Postmanpat:


If those who oppose gay marriage want to compete with those who support it for the moral and intellectual high ground, then they need to argue their case and show that it is equally valid. Until that happens those who support gay marriage firmly occupy the said ground.

So we have a situation in which one view is intellectually and morally consistent and leads to policies with the most positive outcomes, against one which isn't and doesn't. I think it's rather inevitable, and most of all fair, that those on the latter side receive a bit of stick.

As far as the accusations of bigotry are concerned: if you seek to deny something to a group that his been pissed on throughout history and about whom negative attitudes abound throughout society, then your justification has to be pretty solid if you wish to avoid or refute accusations of bigotry. So in the absence of any solid justification of the view, I'm afraid those who hold it will just have to put up with being called bigots, it comes with the territory of opposing equality.

In reply to Postmanpat:


What is the defence for the current definition, other than 'it's traditional' ?

I humbly suggest it's a definition which, as well as traditional societal structures, may have it's roots in the text in the Bible and other holy books which say it's an abomination for a man to lie with a man, and other words to that affect.

I'm really curious as to why it isn't bigotry to selectively interpret a book to exclude certain members of society.

In reply to Timmd:


I eagerly await the blood to come pouring out of this stone.

In reply to Jon Stewart:
I've only really posted again because it seemed a bit disingenuous to say it isn't bigotry, I've got my garden to enjoy today.

I need it after deciding on headstone material this week...

In reply to Timmd:



Much more likely becayse relationships between different sexes produce offspring and so maintains the family and tribe,so that kind of relationship becomes regarded as special, even when it doesnt or cant produce offspring

In reply to Postmanpat:


If that is true, as society changes, with gay couples starting to partner up with lesbian friends or paid(?) surrogate mothers, and lesbian couples using sperm donors so they can have children, then why shouldn't the definition of marriage change as well?

In reply to Bruce Hooker:


I agree, but I don't think such a debate would lead to any kind of consensus from which one could draw policy conclusions. Marriage has practical, instinctive, historical and mythological elements. People whose world views and values differ will never agree on what marriage is 'for'.

In reply to Postmanpat:


I think that's a fair comment on why we have marriage. It doesn't however help any case for denying marriage to certain people.

Now I know you're not arguing against gay marriage, but if that's the best there is to defend the idea that denying marriage to some people is morally and intellectually valid, then I don't think your position's tenable.

In reply to Jon Stewart:


Here is an interesting way of looking at things.

http://www.alternet.org/why-heterosexuality-didnt-really-exist-until-19th-c...

Over the last 150 years, marriage has been transiting away from a social contract that revolved around a partnership in life and sprogging and into a statement of emotion and attachment. Certainly many people would hold that romantic love is a modern notion; if one ascribes to these views than marriage has long since ceased to be about offspring, and there is certainly plenty of evidence to support that. So as far as I am concerned only objecting about the changing role of marriage in the world when it pertains to two people who have the same gender shows an unhealthy obsession with the reproductive organs of total strangers, which does not hold any water with me. Perhaps there are many groups protesting that marriage should be about children, and that children should not be had outside of marriage, but we just don't hear about those as much...

In reply to Jon Stewart:

I think that's a fair comment on why we have marriage. It doesn't however help any case for denying marriage to certain people.

But marriage isn't being denied carte blanche though is it?
It's only being denied by certain religions.

In reply to FactorXXX:
I'm talking on the basis of being generally pro or anti gay marriage.

The OP is from the US, where people are campaigning against gay marriage on the basis that homosexuality is sinful. Here we have the rather illogical fudge of civil partnerships for gays, and civil and civil/religious combo marriages for straights; the recent gay marriage thing about churches was just marketing for David Cameron (look, I'm both modern AND traditional - cool hey, vote for me!).

I suppose some people might argue that civil partnerships for gays are a good thing but UNDER NO CIRCUMSTANCES must they be called "marriage", because the word "marriage" has magic powers which it will lose if gays are allowed to touch it. But they, of course, would be complete f*cking idiots.