Bigot? Give me a break.

There is a difference between having an opinion and being a bigot.

Biblical "God-defined" marriage:

http://bobcargill.files.wordpress.com/2011/10/biblical-marriage.jpg

If your sincerely held religious beliefs are forced upon another in the form of discrimination, then yes, you're a bigot.

Holding an opinion which discriminates against another is bigotry.

Not complicated.

At all.

If an opinion is a bigoted one, the fact that it's held for religious reasons doesn't make it less bigoted

From the Oxford dictionary:

bigot
Syllabification: big·ot
Pronunciation: /ˈbiɡət /
Definition of bigot in English:
NOUN
A person who is intolerant toward those holding different opinions

Now, I think you have every right to think whatever you want about gay marriage. Feel free. But aren't *you* being bigoted by not tolerating people who disagree with your beliefs on gay marriage?

So much hate for religious people around here. Where is the tolerance.

You're perfectly welcome to be a practicing religious person. You aren't allowed to dismantle someone else's life opportunities through your religion, and you aren't allowed to use your religion to cover up your intentions. That's what Tru is doing. The fact that he is using a religion to try to discriminate against a class of people is pathetic and ought to be just as offensive to all of you religious people out there as it is to anyone else.

@ag7433, so much hate for gay marriage around here. Where is the tolerance?

I would just like to stress again I'm not anti-Christian, even though I feel confident that various people permanently put me in that category by now.

Of course we aren't, steephie, but they use those kind of slurs in order to discredit those who want to change traditions. Ag is a perfect example.

While you all bitch at me for calling Tru's bigotry out for what it is:

http://puu.sh/cH2nl/10b6df3c7d.png

@bo, by dismantling and discrimination, do you mean being against gay marriage, or gay people?

@jmo, I don't hate gay marriage, I just understand that it is an oxymoron.

@steephie, you're good man :)

Gay marriage. Robbing someone of the basic right to choose who they marry is dehumanizing and discriminating, just as forcing young girls in many countries around the world to marry men that they don't want to be with.

That google definition is pretty crappy. Here's a better one:

big·ot noun \ˈbi-gət\
: a person who strongly and unfairly dislikes other people, ideas, etc. : a bigoted person; especially : a person who hates or refuses to accept the members of a particular group (such as a racial or religious group)

It's not about opinion or thought. It's about entire categories of people, often those who have characteristics that define them in ways entirely different from the opinions they hold.

Also ^ per my definition post. This really goes both ways.

One group disagrees with gay marriage. Fine. Let them.

One group agrees with gay marriage. Fine. Let them.

"You're perfectly welcome to be a practicing religious person. You aren't allowed to dismantle someone else's life opportunities through your religion, and you aren't allowed to use your religion to cover up your intentions."

Well then you don't really believe in religious liberty. You're setting boundaries to what it is acceptable for people to believe in on matters of faith.

Telling people they cannot have a religious, moral opposition to homosexuality is just as illiberal as telling them they cannot have a religious, moral objection anything else. Freedom of conscience is not just the freedom to believe in the popular, fuzzy-wuzzy things that'll generate Buzzfeed articles. It means freedom to hold any view so long as you don't harm someone else.

Should we think people with bigoted views are assholes? Yes. Should we silence them? No.

You could say that for things like evolution or the existence of a god or transcendent power or anything like that, but when your view on the world is shitting on someone else's life, no. If you disagree with gay marriage, don't marry another person of your sex. Don't tell me I can't.

"Should we think people with bigoted views are assholes? Yes. Should we silence them? No."

Should we prevent them from creating bigoted laws by calling out their bigotry for what it is and assuming that the majority of people are capable of basic reasoning skills? Yes.

"You could say that for things like evolution or the existence of a god or transcendent power or anything like that, but when your view on the world is shitting on someone else's life, no. If you disagree with gay marriage, don't marry another person of your sex. Don't tell me I can't."

People don't have the right to be perfectly insulated from others' opinions. It's perfectly fine to have a view of the world that shits on someone else's life. What's wrong is actually *doing* it, like resorting to violence. People who oppose gay marriage have just as much of a right to express their view as advocates have to express theirs. Again, we ought not silence voices we simply disagree with. That's wildly illiberal.

You're perfectly within your rights to hold disgusting beliefs, for religious reasons or others. That doesn't mean I have to pretend that those beliefs are morally acceptable in the name of religious freedom.

@Jeff, I didn't take the google one, I went to the online Oxford definition. I regard the Oxford as the mainly top dictionary, and try to stick to it.
http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/us/definition/american_english/bigot

@bo, what are your views on polygamy?

Sure, you can express your opinion, and I can call you out on having a bigoted and discriminatory opinion. No one's silencing anyone from speaking their mind. That's what's going on here. However, when you actually put that discrimination into action, or "actually doing it" as you say, in this instance by banning people from marrying whomever they choose to marry or by preventing your state from recognizing contracts established in another state, you are crossing into a whole new threshold.

"Should we prevent them from creating bigoted laws by calling out their bigotry for what it is and assuming that the majority of people are capable of basic reasoning skills? Yes. "

You're just poisoning the well of honest debate by framing things like that. The fight, to the extent it still exists, is over the use of the word "marriage," not any substantive difference in legal rights. I support gay marriage myself, but this de-legitimization of anything but the maximalist approach is not good for social cohesion. It's not as if these people want to bring back enforced anti-sodomy laws, they just think the word "marriage" should be reserved for a man and a woman. A bit old fashioned these days from a secular perspective, but hardly so outrageous that we need to paint millions of people as "bigots."

I find it odd that people insist on not legislating morality. Of course people legislate morality. How else are they supposed to do it? Would you support legalizing murder, theft, rape, arson, etc.? If not, then how dare you try to limit the psychopaths of the world to your intolerant views on morality.

"Telling people they cannot have a religious, moral opposition to homosexuality is just as illiberal as telling them they cannot have a religious, moral objection anything else. Freedom of conscience is not just the freedom to believe in the popular, fuzzy-wuzzy things that'll generate Buzzfeed articles. It means freedom to hold any view so long as you don't harm someone else."

I don't think that anyone really thinks that people can't have a moral objection to homosexuality. If certain religions refuse to sanction those relationships, so be it. Take those bigoted views and own them. Cast out the infidels, apostates and irredeemable sinners.

However, all too often religious people don't acknowledge that there is a secular world out there. They try to impose their religious views on those that don't ascribe to their beliefs. It's proselytizing gone a few steps too far. Think Dominion Christianity.

Lots of Americans at least hold dear the philosophy of separation of church and state. When religious folks try to impose their bigoted views on government, that's where the trouble starts.

@KC ... as long as everyone involved is consenting, I couldn't give less of a fuck, marry whoever you want. If someone involved is left in the dark, then it's different.

I don't support polygamy or gay marriage because I would partake in either, but because what you do with your life is not my business. Likewise, if you want to be a practicing Christian and view gay marriage as an offensive practice, fine, but if you want to tell me that my life is immoral based on your belief, I'm going to shove a baseball bat up your ass.

"Would you support legalizing murder, theft, rape, arson, etc.?"

Those offenses are harmful to others who aren't consenting in the matter. Murder harms the victim and anyone related to them, as does theft. Rape harms the victim and pretty much anyone they associate themselves with for the rest of their lives through trauma and creating triggers in many instances. Arson is destruction of another's property and can lead to personal injury too. Allowing two (or more) consenting parties to participate in a marriage does not harm anyone, yourself included.

"One group disagrees with gay marriage. Fine. Let them.

One group agrees with gay marriage. Fine. Let them."

While I won't go as far as calling you a hypocrite, I do want to point out that your reasoning is slightly less consistent than 'ours'.
While 'we' would say the exact thing I just quoted as well, we could also add:

One couple doesn't want to enter gay marriage. Fine. Let them.

Another couple wants to enter gay marriage. Fine. Let them.

It seems that you wouldn't be able to apply that same consistency. Would you agree to that statement? I could use more arguments to support it, but I don't want a debate, I want a discussion.

@bo, so are you saying that physically assaulting people for voicing their opinions is fine?

"You're perfectly within your rights to hold disgusting beliefs, for religious reasons or others. That doesn't mean I have to pretend that those beliefs are morally acceptable in the name of religious freedom."

Of course not. You have your rights too.


"when you actually put that discrimination into action, or "actually doing it" as you say, in this instance by banning people from marrying whomever they choose to marry or by preventing your state from recognizing contracts established in another state, you are crossing into a whole new threshold."

Don't make it out like gay marriage isn't the change to status quo. Or former status quo.

Again, you're poisoning the well. Effectively you're saying that it's OK for people to oppose gay marriage, but there's no legitimate way for them to advance their beliefs. That's ludicrous. So people can only practice their faith within the literal walls of their church?

Again, I think it's settled that gay marriage is going to be universal quite soon. I'm talking about the broader principle.