Is the opinion that gay marriage is morally wrong a bigoted opinion?

[ZombieHorde]

Poll question: Is the opinion that gay marriage is morally wrong a bigoted opinion?

The silly response is actually "Other".

Voting "No" does not mean you do not support gay marriage.

[OmahaBlueDog]

1. Doesn't voting "No" actually violate the rules of DU and get one shown the door?

[Xipe Totec]

2. We need a Guinea pig...

You go, I watch....


:hide:

[OmahaBlueDog]

7. Sorry, I'm allergic to Tombstones

:P

[Ken Burch]

14. A Guinea pig? I didn't know you were that kinky!

There's probably a website for that kind of thing.

[Xipe Totec]

25. You have no idea...

but that's not important right now....

[ZombieHorde]

3. No. Someone can believe the opinion is not bigoted but still support gay marriage.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

12. Interesting theory.

Wouldn't the moral defense of homophobes be essentially the same thing?

Kind of like saying the Nazis weren't anti-semitic and did nothing immoral?

[ZombieHorde]

16. I was trying to be open to debate. nt

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

17. Should the question of whether or not Nazis were anti-semitic be open to debate?

[ZombieHorde]

20. Not in any rational setting, but the Nazis were more extreme than many against gay marriage.

To compare Obama, Biden, Clinton, and Richardson to Nazis seems like an extreme position to me.

[Ken Burch]

30. And the Nazis, weirdly enough, were staunchly "pro-life" on abortion

Bertolt Brecht wrote a song about that called "The Ballad of Paragraph 28(Abortion is illegal)", In the song, a doctor tells a woman that she has to carry her pregnancy to term because the boy will eventually be needed in a war("you're going to be a lovely little mother/you're going to have a lump of cannon fodder").

This sentiment was(unconsciously, I hope)echoed in signs by anti-abortion people held up during the Gulf War that said "Support Our Unborn Troops".

[Starry Messenger]

35. Well pro-life unless you were Jewish or someone else not deemed "fit"

:scared: Then you could have an abortion and probably get a dose of radiation as a follow up just to make sure you didn't get pregnant again.

[Ken Burch]

37. Well, yeah. They were pro-Aryan life.

n/t.

[ZombieHorde]

87. Is this just a random Nazi fact?

[Ken Burch]

120. No, it's part of their record.

I found it a curious contradiction.

[dsc]

135. that is a complete lie

Pro life means pro all life not pro some life. They had no moral objection whatsoever to abortion and sterilization when it was applied to Jews, Roma, or Poles to name three examples.

[donco6]

148. True. And quite barbaric about it at that.

They weren't antiabortion as much as pro-let's-make-sure-we-have-lots-of-white-Aryan-babies.

[Ken Burch]

155. They were pro-life with regards to Aryans.

I made the distinction about their being anti-life towards everyone else.

[blondeatlast]

166. "...more extreme THAN MANY..." but that was all that it took to slaughter thousands of innocents. nt

[jberryhill]

24. It is many Catholic politician's position on abortion

I'm sure there are principles of conduct which I follow, but which I would certainly not want to impose on others.

I'm an "I don't eat veal" person, but I do not browbeat my restaurant companions if they order veal.

[Sebastian Doyle]

4. It certainly should

After recent events, I'm not so sure anymore :evilfrown:

[LostinVA]

10. Skinner has publicly stated support of gay marriage is expected of members

[Kaleva]

18. Which would mean Obama could not be a member here

Nor would Biden, Dean and a bunch of other high ranking Dems.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

19. That's why he'd be posting under an anonymous username.

I'm sure that Obama, Biden, Dean etc. are personally in favor of gay marriage, and claim otherwise for political purposes. And I'm sure Skinner and other DUers, present company included, would hold the same position as Obama, Dean, etc. if they had to play politics like the high ranking dems.

[Common Sense Party]

56. You're SURE of that?

You're SURE. You know this for a CERTAINTY. It's a GIVEN. A FACT. It's INCONTROVERTIBLE?

Or do you ASSUME? Guess? Suppose? Hope? Want to believe?

If you're SURE--that's great for you. It must be wonderful to be omniscient.

[AngryAmish]

73. Haven't we been lied to enough?

Is simple honesty too much for a person we entrust with so much?

[blondeatlast]

167. As usual, the truth stings badly. Dead on accurate, you are. nt

[Starry Messenger]

22. As long as they kept their opinions to themselves they might squeak by.

Maybe they post under secret aliases. :crazy: I'm sure there are plenty of people here who don't believe in gay marriage and keep silent about it, actually.

[Kaleva]

23. Then the results of the poll would be suspect

If DU members who may have voted No didn't vote at all or voted Yes, even if they thought otherwise, in order to provide themselves cover.

[Starry Messenger]

27. The results of polls here are based on voluntary responses.

I believe that self-selected polling is considered unscientific.

[Kaleva]

29. Then every poll here at DU is just for fun

and the results cannot be taken seriously.

[Starry Messenger]

34. More or less.

Although the Admins have TS'd people for answering yes to polls with a bigoted "yes" option. Opinion on that action is mixed on that as well, but I'm certainly not starting a poll on it. :D

[snowdays]

75. It is certainly biased with threatened

with a tombstone--as poster above indicates.

[Starry Messenger]

81. I don't see where I indicated otherwise.

??

[Caliman73]

89. I'd have to agree with that.

I would imagine that homophobia is alive and kicking in the ranks of the Democratic Party. People are Dems for many reasons and not all Dems support every aspect across the wide spectrum of issues. Obviously 21 people voted "No", so unless they are just stirring the pot, you have to know that there are some who oppose it.

I voted yes because the reality of homosexual relationships and marriage is benign in my eyes, at least as benign as heterosexual relationships and marriage. I think that most of the "moral" objections come from religious or cultural traditions where it is viewed as wrong because it goes against the dominant patriarchal structure not because it truly harms society like say, murder does or child abuse, or rape. The difference between those crimes, and the illegality of gay marriage is that gay marriage makes people "uncomfortable" whereas murder, rape, and child abuse actually damage people physically and mentally. That is why I say that the "moral" argument against gay marriage is a bigoted view.

[mkultra]

129. Skinner has also said that Obama's stance is the most gay friendly of any president.

[jberryhill]

26. That's not the question, though

There are those who believe that abortion is morally wrong, but should be legal as a practical matter, and who support keeping it legal.

[cherokeeprogressive]

80. One most certainly CAN be TS'd for voting in a poll, even without making a comment. n/t

[billyoc]

114. No.

[cherokeeprogressive]

124. If what you are saying is that you cannot be TS'd for how you vote in a poll, you are wrong.

It happened to ME. Before Christmas I accidentally clicked the wrong answer in a poll. The first thing I noticed was that some respondents were demanding to know who voted "NO", and askign Mods if not Administrators to go deep to find out who voted how. I left home for the holidays, and tried to log on from my Mom and Dad's. I couldn't. I found out later than I had been TS'd, and after explaining my predicament to Skinner, was reinstated. To the anger of some who celebrated my tombstone I might add.

[billyoc]

128. You've proven my point, as soon as you told Skinner you voted the wrong way by accident,

you were reinstated.

[cherokeeprogressive]

130. Touche n/t

[Smarmie Doofus]

5. I think it's a *dishonest* opinion.

Sexual orientation and some people's discomfort with variability of same is dressed up in rhetoric of "morality" but I think I think the aversion is much more primitive in nature. Homosexuality is different from one's own experience and is therefore somehow vaguely threatening. ( One doesn't instinctively *understand* it.)

Not much of a jump from threatening to .... "evil", seems to me.

[Diamonique]

6. I voted no.

I support gay marriage.

But I believe if a person is against it because they "honestly and truly" believe it's immoral, then it's not a bigoted opinion. They're wrong... but not bigoted.

Having said that, I also believe that many (most?) of the people who say they are against it on moral grounds really are bigoted and simply using "morals" as a cover-up for their bigoted ideas.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

8. What about interracial marriage?

[madeline_con]

9. "... they "honestly and truly" believe it's immoral..."

Just because the person doesn't know any better? IOW, if they believe/have been taught that homos are deranged, have a birth defect, or have chosen an "immoral lifestyle" that makes their belief o.k?

[LostinVA]

13. Yup, exactly

By that logic, "devout and sincere" Nazis didn't hold bigoted views. Nor does the most rabid Klansman.

:wtf:

[Diamonique]

49. I never said their belief was OK.

Read my post again.

I specifically said their opinion is wrong.

[riderinthestorm]

53. Say what??

I don't get your reasoning.

Their "opinion" (that gay marriage is wrong) is wrong, but their "belief" (that gay marriage is wrong) is okay?

If this isn't a semantical hair-splitting, what is?

[Diamonique]

57. I don't have a clue what you're talking about.

As I said before, read what I said.

And stop putting words in my mouth. I never said the belief/opinion was OK. I said it's wrong.

They have a right to their opinion. If they truly believe gay marriage is morally wrong, then I think their opinion is wrong, but not necessarily bigoted.

The OP's question wasn't whether or not the moral belief is OK. It was whether or not it is bigoted.

Now I'm done. It's very difficult to have a conversation when people change the subject in the middle of the discussion.

[LostinVA]

11. How can it NOT be bigoted?

[kwassa]

33. It can easily not be bigoted.

To call someone a bigot, one has to know what their beliefs are.

If you don't know WHY someone is against gay marriage, you can call them a bigot, but that would be based on an assumption about that person, which really is simply, unfortunately, another form of prejudice. The word prejudice means to pre-judge.

[LooseWilly]

38. I like mental gymnastics...

And I am an anti anti gay rights bigot, if that label is a prerequisite for judging the notion that gay marriage as immoral is bigotry.

Of course, technically, I'm not judging the person a bigot, I'm just judging the view as bigotry... so, maybe I'm not actually a bigot (Ok, I am).

Hmm... and come to think of it, how is being bigoted against anti-gay rights bigots "pre-judging"? Wouldn't it be, technically, "post-judging"?... as it is a judgement based on an opinion held and professed... Isn't there a difference between being bigoted against Evangelicals, pre-judging them to be anti-gay rights, and just being bigoted against those Evangelicals who have already professed themselves to be anti-gay rights?

What about Asian drivers, as long as we're playing mental gymnastics games? Am I bigoted if I consider an Asian driver to be a bad driver if he/she stops at a green light at an empty intersection? Or only if I assume in advance that said driver will stop at a green light in an empty intersection?

[kwassa]

39. What mental gymnastics?

Aside from the incomprehensibility of your reply ...

I was completely clear.

Sorry you couldn't understand.

[LooseWilly]

42. I apologize.

Your post was mental gymnastics... so I assumed you wanted to play mental gymnastics games.

If you want a prosaic response... here you go.

You say that to judge someone a bigot who is believes gay marriage is immoral requires that you know "why" they believe it is immoral. I judged that to be mental gymnastics. What you argue to be "completely clear" is in fact a subtle game of noun substitutions... rather adeptly done by taking advantage of the vagaries of pronouns in contrast with proper nouns.

When a person says that the belief that gay marriage is immoral is bigotry, they are not actually saying that the person professing such beliefs are bigots. They are saying that the professed beliefs are bigoted. The implied leap is that the person who holds bigoted beliefs is, in fact, a bigot.

Your argument, that one would need to know why a person held the belief that gay marriage is immoral before one could call them a bigot, and the supporting notion of that argument, that judging "one who implies that another who holds the belief that gay marriage is immoral" is a form of pre-judging is a logical fallacy. In this case, you are the one who assumes that "the judgement that the belief that gay marriage is immoral is bigotry" is the same thing as making the leap to "those who believe that gay marriage is immoral are bigots"... and you further argue that it is a pre-judgement.

I am saying that it is not a pre-judgement of a person. I am saying that it is a judgement of a belief. Hence, there is no pre-judgement, and no prejudice involved in making the judgement that "the belief that gay marriage is immoral" is bigotry.

Now, once that judgement is made... and assuming you are not going to argue that "the belief that gay marriage is immoral" is not bigotry... well then, if you'd like, we can make the next step of the judgementalism (not pre-judgementalism) and judge that those who do,in fact, hold the belief that "gay marriage is immoral", a belief that we have judged to be bigoted, well... the next step is to judge those who hold a bigoted belief to be... bigots. There is no "pre-judgement" involved. What we have here is simply an application of the definitions of words.

Bigot
: a person obstinately or intolerantly devoted to his or her own opinions and prejudices ; especially : one who regards or treats the members of a group (as a racial or ethnic group) with hatred and intolerance

I would argue that the LGBT community qualifies as an "ethnic group", and that judging their desire to be married as "immoral" qualifies as "intolerance".

Is that a prosaic enough response? Is it clear enough? (I know it sure wasn't as fun to write as the demi-poetry of my previous response...)

[Colobo]

43. Good post.

[LooseWilly]

46. Thank you.

I still like #38 better. It was more fun to write...

:+

[kwassa]

51. Sorry, but you jumped the shark.

Nothing against you personally, but this meme gets quite tiresome on DU.

"You say that to judge someone a bigot who is believes gay marriage is immoral requires that you know "why" they believe it is immoral."

WHOA! This is not what I said at all. This is what I am saying:

How do you know they believe gay marriage is immoral? Have you asked them, or communicated with them in any way?

Have you ever considered that they might vote against gay marriage for other reasons?

Without talking to them, how do you know what their thinking is? Or do you care?

the epic fail assumption, to use DU slang, is that you know that they believe without making any attempt to ask them. That is an assumption, and to judge them by your assumption (and you are not alone, many others assume the same thing) is to pre-judge them, and that position is therefore prejudiced.

And prejudice is prejudice, from the left or the right or anyplace else.

[Starry Messenger]

54. "Have you ever considered that they might vote against gay marriage for other reasons?"

What other reasons are there? Other than reading the voting forms wrong...

[Starry Messenger]

59. No answer?

Curious...

[LooseWilly]

61. Really? I "jumped the shark"? Are you sure you feel comfortable using metaphors?

So, "You say that to judge someone a bigot who is believes gay marriage is immoral requires that you know "why" they believe it is immoral." is not a fair statement of what you'd said?

Hmm, here's your quote: "To call someone a bigot, one has to know what their beliefs are."

What, praytell, is the difference between "to judge someone a bigot... requires that you know "why" they believe it is immoral" (my paraphrase of your statement) AND "To call someone a bigot, one has to know what their beliefs are."?

"why they believe it is immoral" (which I linked to bigotry) is not significantly different than "know what their beliefs are" They both imply that you have to have insight into the thought processes of a person to call them a bigot. Fair enough.

The obvious answer is that you will "know their beliefs", or, to use my paraphrase which was an attempt to clear up your awkward conflations of several steps of the logical/etiological processes of judgement "know "why" they believe it is immoral"... when they say they believe that gay marriage is immoral.

The pretext of the whole argument was that we were talking about a person who believed that "gay marriage is immoral". Your sudden switch to the "Have you ever considered that they might vote against gay marriage for other reasons?" is a complete jump off of the tracks of the suppositions that I was under the impression that the OP had set out for us.

Talk about jumping the shark.

If you want to treat that issue... fine. Have I ever considered that they might vote against it for other reasons than that they consider it immoral?? Sure I have... they might also vote against it because they're prejudiced douche bags... Do you really want me to enumerate more reasons that I can imagine that people might vote against gay marriage rights, besides their consideration that it's immoral? I can. How about, their priest/pastor/religious leader is a bigoted douche bag and the person in question is too mentally flabby to think for him/herself? Would you like more thoughts on the subject of your shark-jumped re-framing of the issue?

"Without talking to them how do you know what their thinking is? Do you care?" Really?... Did you not read what I'd written? Given the starting point that they believe that gay marriage is immoral I don't need to talk to them. They hold a bigoted opinion, and as a consequence of holding that bigoted opinion... they are bigots. Do I care what they are thinking?... as far as the judgement that they are bigots... no. I don't care. It is not relevant. If they think that voting against gay marriage is the only way to save the Earth from an invasion of space aliens.... and they think they're doing it for the good of the human race... it doesn't matter. They are still bigots.

As for your "epic fail assumption" that I know what they believe without asking them... Have you been smoking crack with Marion Barry? I make no such assumptions about anyone. I was making judgements starting from the given that they do believe that gay marriage is immoral. If they do not believe that, then I am not talking about them. I don't know what might have given you any other impression, as I never said anything about anyone who wasn't already "defined" as believing that.

If you believe that "gay marriage is immoral", then I believe you hold bigoted views. If you hold bigoted views, then I believe you are a bigot.

If you are a random person passing me on the street... I do not "pre-judge" you as being a bigot. If you stop, and explain to me that you believe that "gay marriage is immoral", then I will respond by explaining to you that you are a bigot.

And that is not prejudice, it is "post-judice". It is judgement based on facts discerned.

And frankly... I am shocked that you have the audacity to embarrass yourself with that response. That is a post-judgement of your critical thinking skills.

If you would like to have a discussion about how we are supposed to decide if people are bigoted before speaking with them, then you are obviously schizophrenic and assume that everyone has a system of pre-judgementalism to discuss.

If you are going to try to defend people whose opinion is that "gay marriage is immoral" by insisting that we need to ask them what their opinion is, then you are lacking in mental faculties, as we are talking about people whose opinions have already been determined.

If you don't understand the difference, then we'll have to begin with the fundamentals of critical thinking, and help you build the capacity to make rational distinctions.

If you are asking what steps have been made to determine the beliefs of a given individual... well, then you are making an incredibly specious argument... but I'll play along. Name the person, and I'll see if I can tell you what steps have been made to ask said person what his/her opinions are...

[Zenlitened]

131. Re: If you believe that "gay marriage is immoral"...

...If you believe that "gay marriage is immoral", then I believe you hold bigoted views. If you hold bigoted views, then I believe you are a bigot.

:applause: It really is that simple. Well said. :applause:

Good post, debunking anti-gay apologetics.

[fishwax]

76. the whole point of the thread is that they believe it is morally wrong

WHOA! This is not what I said at all. This is what I am saying:

How do you know they believe gay marriage is immoral? Have you asked them, or communicated with them in any way?

The hypothetical in the thread (and this subthread) was specifically predicated on that belief. :shrug:

[donco6]

144. Exactly.

The whole point of the thread is that you know what they believe - they've said so.

[donco6]

143. Made sense to me.

"When a person says that the belief that gay marriage is immoral is bigotry, they are not actually saying that the person professing such beliefs are bigots. They are saying that the professed beliefs are bigoted. The implied leap is that the person who holds bigoted beliefs is, in fact, a bigot."

Absolutely.

[Caliman73]

90. You are a bigot if...

You believe that the reason the person is a bad driver is because of being Asian. Bigotry is intolerance and condemnation of beliefs that differ from your own. Therefore the bigotry would not lay with your belief that the one particular Asian person was not a good driver, but in the idea that the Asian person was a bad driver because they are Asian. How's that?

[mkultra]

96. ironic. The point of this op is to show intolerance to the opinions of others

I find that funny. Seems like it would be more appropriate to ask whether belief against gay marriage is always founded in bigotry, not whether it itself IS bigotry.


ahh semantics.

[Caliman73]

116. No. The point of the OP was to get the opinions of others.

The question was whether "Moral" arguments against gay marriage are founded in bigotry.

[mkultra]

127. the tacit point was to draw out those who disagree with gay marriage.

so they could be filleted and fried. To give you the benefit of the doubt, ill answer the overtly simple question.

since bigotry is defined as intolerance or disgust at the opinions, lifestyles and identities of others, then simply holding a belief or taking a stand whether it be moral or not is not bigotry. Most moral arguments are founded in religious belief which can be either intolerant of the ideals of others or not.


Simple answer: some are some aren't. My guess is that most are.

[Lyric]

176. "the tacit point was to draw out those who disagree with gay marriage."

And even if this is true, there's no problem with it, as such a belief is strictly forbidden in DU members.

There is a constitutional right to believe that gay marriage is wrong, but there is not constitutional right to express it here on DU. Posts that "draw out" members who don't belong here are fine with me. Would anyone be complaining if the OP was meant to "draw out" people who are racist or misogynist?

:shrug:

[LooseWilly]

132. That sounds about right to me.

I was hoping that an analogy from a whole other "realm" of bigotry might be illuminating for Kwassa... maybe not.

To "translate" your answer "back" to gay marriage... If one believes that gay marriage is immoral, then they are displaying Bigotry. If one believes that one particular gay couple is immoral, then that would not be bigotry.

[riderinthestorm]

40. I know what my mom's beliefs are, and she's a bigot.

She believes Gawd is against homosexuality. The Bible tells her so. She honestly believes that it's morally wrong. She's a bigot and I've told her so. Obama is a bigot. I've said it out loud. Anyone who doesn't believe in full civil rights for all Americans are bigots. Easy - peasy.

I don't know how you can disconnect someone's bigoted "beliefs" from being a "bigot" - it's not possible in my mind.

[kwassa]

52. Good. Your mom is a bigot.

and many of those that are against gay marriage are.

You, however, know WHY your mom is opposed to gay marriage.

I made no attempt to disconnect beliefs, by the way. I am only pointing out that people are being called bigots where NO actual knowledge of their beliefs exist.

That is all.

thank you very much.

[blondeatlast]

168. What belief makes it UN-bigoted to be against gay marriage?

That's the disconnect that is confusing at least me and I suspect many others on this board.

[mkultra]

97. Its important to point out that you may be a bigot by definition

Not that its a big deal, but the actual meaning of bigotry is simply intolerance for those who's opinions, lifestyles or identities differ from your own.

[donco6]

150. The old "everyone's a bigot" argument.

Ho hum.

[mkultra]

154. tired but true. unless your tolerant, then your a bigot.

[donco6]

164. Then "bigotry" has no meaning whatsoever.

Arguing has no point. Taking a stand is evil. Right and Wrong are flip sides of one another.

Any of this ring a bell?

[mkultra]

170. sorry, thats a strawman

differences and passion are one thing, intolerance and disgust are something else. One is the definition of bigotry, one is not.

[Starry Messenger]

41. Why?

We all know what the beliefs are of white supremacists. They believe anyone not white is inferior and probably from a branch that didn't get pruned in evolution. Do I not get to call them bigoted because I know what their beliefs are? :shrug: That isn't from assumption actually, since they have several hateful websites that promulgate their views.

[donco6]

142. So as long as someone has no basis for their argument,

they can't be a bigot. Gotcha.

[Lyric]

175. If you're against gay marriage because of religious, cultural, or social concerns

then you're a bigot. You're a bigot because you think that YOUR definition of a non-crime cultural, religious, or social "norm" should be FORCED upon other people, whether they agree with it or not. That is the very definition of the cruel, selfish small-mindedness that is the hallmark of bigotry. There are no reasons for opposing gay marriage that are not rooted in bigotry. Even sincere, deeply-religious people can be bigots--in fact, devout religion (especially fundamentalist religion) requires a certain degree of bigotry on the part of its members in order to exist. You cannot logically claim to have the "only literal Truth of God" and that your dogma is representative of "God's true will" without simultaneously claiming (whether directly or indirectly) that all OTHER paths are wrong/offensive to God/unnatural. The first part is an example of a (logically, not morally) positive expression of faith, but the latter is an expression of bigotry in its most basic form. Unfortunately, there is no such thing as a faith that espouses the former without also espousing the latter.

If you can find me ONE example of a religious person who says:

A: My religious faith, and the moral beliefs that spring from it, are the only True ones.
B: Other peoples' beliefs are just as morally valid as mine, and I do not find them offensive.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
C: Therefore, I am not a bigot.

...then I'd be very interested in seeing it.

I believe that such an equation is logically impossible, because A and B contradict one another. You can substitute "cultural beliefs" and "social beliefs" for religious faith in the above equation, and it is still logically impossible, because the premises contradict each other. There are religious faiths, ideologies, and cultures that are indeed not bigoted, but they do not espouse premise A--only premise B.

I'm not sure why you think the "Why" is important, but I'd be very interested in seeing you logically break down an example of a person who fits your idea of a non-bigot who opposes gay marriage.

:shrug:

[Kaleva]

15. Everyone is a bigot to some degree

"one who is obstinately or intolerantly devoted to his or her own opinions and prejudices"

[unapatriciated]

82. This thread reminds me of Avenue Q

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xbwNSNLPIfw

Saw it last week while on vacation in New York. Still laughing, great play.

[donco6]

145. Now there's some mental gymnastics.

So if we're not willing to be convinced that it's morally wrong to be gay, gays are bigots, too?

[Old Hank]

21. Most voters in this poll seem to believe that President Obama is a bigot

He opposes gay marriage.

[ZombieHorde]

32. Many here believe Obama lies about his gay marriage stance and sides with bigots

for personal political gain.

[Geek_Girl]

69. If he truly believes Gay Marriage is immoral, then yes he is a bigot.

If he's against gay marriage for political purposes then he's just a politician.

[mkultra]

98. holding a belief doesnt make you a bigot, being intolerant does

[donco6]

146. So, are you saying as long as you don't manifest your bigotry,

you're OK?

[mkultra]

153. im saying its ignorance until it manifests as bigotry

[donco6]

165. I think Jesus had it right:

"As a man thinks in his heart, so is he."

If you think like a bigot, it's going to manifest.

[mkultra]

171. not unreasonable but clearly not absolute

Many people hold ideas that are transient and do not manifest. The bigotry begins at a much later stage. What I'm saying here isn't really ground breaking. I'm just discussing the premise of bigotry.

[ZombieHorde]

172. Publicly siding with bigots for political gain is just as bad as being a bigot. nt

[JerseygirlCT]

138. And that opposition makes me sad and annoyed

Especially since I believe he knows what's right, and is just afraid to take the politic guff to do what's right.

Any religious objection is moot on the subject, as no one is going to demand that any religious group perform or recognize any marriage within the confines of their practice.

But civil rights are another thing. And there is simply no legal rationale to deny gay people full rights as citizens. None.

[Rhythm]

139. I couldn't agree with you more, Jersey...

:hi:

[jberryhill]

28. If Coupled With The Further Opinion That Morals Shouldn't Be Imposed On Others

...then at that point it's simply something inside their head.

Are vegetarians trying to make everyone else stop eating meat?

Are those who support legal abortion as a practical matter, but who would not have one on personal moral grounds evil?

I don't care what someone's "moral opinions" are. The question is how a democratic society conducts itself. And that, for me, is also a moral question.

Is being schizophrenic and hearing voices in your head "wrong"? No. People can be as insane as all get out, so long as the voices aren't bothering me.

[rucky]

31. They can think what they want as long as they don't try to legislate it.

that's my two cents.

[Colobo]

36. I voted no and I support gay marriage.

The reason being that there are people who are not necessarily bigoted but that grew up in an era in which interracial marriage, gay marriage and diversity in general was... strange, to use a certain word, but that honestly do not feel hate for racial minorities or gays. In many cases, opposition to gay marriage is rooted in outdated views, not necessarily on pure bigotry.

[riderinthestorm]

44. I don't get how this isn't semantics. "Outdated views" can't be termed bigotry? nt

[Colobo]

64. They can, if they are based on pure, conscious hate and not on

a learned cultural attitude that can't be explained or rationalized. Hate is, in my view, the key to bigotry. A person that thinks interracial marriage is wrong because he or she was told that by parents, family members and a community but has no personal reason to oppose those marriages might be saved through exposure to them and education- by demonstrating to the person that there is nothing to fear about interracial marriages.

In the other hand, someone that just hates people, consciously and willingly, for whatever causes or reason, is a bigot and can't be saved, in my view.

Maybe I'm not making sense, but it's my theory, at least for now. I might be proven wrong any given day.

[donco6]

147. So, if you have a really dumb reason, you can't be a bigot.

I'm learning so much today.

[mkultra]

101. well, it probably seems like semantics to you

But i think the point being made here is that you don't understand what bigotry is. Simple intolerance or offense at the beliefs of others qualifies as bigotry.

[Caliman73]

100. That is a pretty good round about definition of bigotry. There is no such thing as...

Pure Bigotry. Nobody wants to be called a bigot because it carries deeply negative attributes, but bigotry is intense and stubborn intolerance of beliefs and ideas which you do not hold, despite your beliefs being proven false. If you grew up thinking that Black people were not equal to your own ethnic group because your family and community held those beliefs, then your family, your community, and you are bigoted. As Kevala said, we may all carry bigoted beliefs to a degree. Does that make us evil? No, I wouldn't say that, but people who continue to try and impose their beliefs to the detriment of a benign minority are crossing the line.

[MellowDem]

45. I know of gay people...

who are opposed to gay marriage.

They say that legalizing gay marriage just reinforces the power of marriage in our society and that marriage is part of the hetero-normative setup of society. By getting married, a gay couple would automatically be imposed upon by those cultural forces.

They see gay couples as a unique opportunity to challenge the status quo of what relationships should mean (and of course gender roles within those relationships). By legalizing marriage, they believe the GLBT movement will just be coopted by mainstream society and all the problems associated with marriage and hetero-normative relationships will remain.

Not that I agree with them, but it sounds like they want to just skip a step of progressivism. Personally, I don't think that the GLBT movement alone will be able to fundamentally change the nature of relationships in our society, nor do I believe it is their responsibility to sacrifice themselves in challenging hetero-normative lifestyles. And of course much of the movement does not agree with this priority. Equality first is usually the plan.

[riderinthestorm]

47. Yes but they don't see it as a moral evil. Apples and oranges. nt

[MellowDem]

48. Some of them see marriage as a moral evil! nt

[riderinthestorm]

50. Sorry, I didn't get that from your post.

You seemed to be articulating a civil union position, not that there are gays who believe marriage is a moral evil.

Can I be the first to say that's just... fucked up?

Marriage is many things but morally evil? Wow. I'm going to guess that's a pretty slim percentage of the population, straight or gay....

[MellowDem]

125. True...

It is probably a very small percentage. But it has more to do with the idea of marriage being patriarchal and simply a way to control the population with certain gender roles and rules. Of course marriage doesn't have to mean having a patriarchal relationship or strict gender roles necessarily.

But it's not that shocking. Think of how many people think of religion as evil. Some of those same people consider marriage to be a religious institution and therefore evil.

[slackmaster]

93. I know a male gay couple who cannot get married because of a religious issue

One of them is a Catholic priest. Priests can't marry.

[Sebastian Doyle]

152. Well, according to the vows he took as a priest, he's cheating on God

Now THAT is a moral issue! But he chose to be a priest, and all that goes with it. If he's true to those vows than he shouldn't be involved with anybody else, male or female.

Personally, I think a vow of celibacy for life is ridiculous, unrealistic, and completely taking out of context one biblical verse from Paul who clearly had serious "issues" with any sort of sexuality hetero, homo, married or whatever.

Obviously your priest friend has admitted that reality himself, as he's in a relationship with a man who is not God or JC. But considering priests are "married" to the church, that would make him an adulterer. Which is a completely seperate issue from the question of whether an objection to gay marriage is bigotry. All the same though, he did know what the rules were when he decided to put on the collar.

[Geek_Girl]

68. That's their choice. There are Hetero couples that feel the same way about marriage

I believe everyone should have the choice.

[redqueen]

79. Thank you...

I agree that everyone should be able to make that choice for themselves.

[slackmaster]

92. I know a few of them personally

:hi:

[nomaco-10]

55. Wow just Wow. It appears that nearly 30% of duers think that....

those that oppose gay marriage on du consider themselves as not "bigoted".

It's just a jaw dropping wow. A lot to digest.

[nomaco-10]

62. Make it closer to 1/4 now, but still disappointing. n/t

[Starry Messenger]

66. It is disappointing.

I'm not too surprised though. Despite what I said upthread about the unreliability of DU polls, I've argued with enough people on this board on the issue to feel this one is probably pretty accurate.

[donco6]

141. Not at all surprising.

When you've been around for years, you see it over and over again.

[IndianaGreen]

58. It is on the same level as saying that interracial marriage is morally wrong

Fundies opposed interracial marriage and pointed to the Bible as justification for their bigotry. We see the same thing at play with those opposed to LGBT rights.

[Withywindle]

60. Yes, it's a bigoted opinion. Deal with it.

Yes, I think Obama holds a bigoted opinion. I'll say that to his face if he asks me. I still have some hope that he'll get the clue-by-four some day, but it's not happening fast enough for me.

I think many of us hold some bigoted opinions of one kind or another deep down inside. It's not something to be proud of, but it is something worthwhile to be honest about. I have sympathy and empathy for people who are struggling with this.

But I have no sympathy for inequality-defenders who get their panties in a twist over the word "bigot" or "bigoted." If you're going to hold a bigoted opinion as a "sincere deeply held belief" then grow up and deal with the consequences when people try to explain to you how it hurts them. There's no way that word carries as much sting and pain as being told that the love of your life is in some way "immoral."

[vaberella]

63. I think so...I don't see why ANYONE should be denied the right to marry.

Hetero's have no monopoly on love to assume they can dictate who can or can't marry. Secondly, there's no morals in relation to marriage---that's a social construction.

[harun]

85. So siblings should be allowed to marry?

[mkultra]

103. wow, that is a mind blower. what about mothers and sons.

[Celeborn Skywalker]

65. Bigoted or not,

I care more about actions. My dad thinks gay marriage and homosexuality is morally "wrong" but still supports legalizing gay marriage. Yes, he has a bigoted attitude, but he believes in freedom and non-discrimination so I still think of him as at least somewhat "enlightened".

[Geek_Girl]

67. Is the opinion that interracial marriage is morally wrong a bigoted opinion?

People who believe interracial marriage is morally wrong are bigots. People who believe gay marriage is morally wrong are bigots.

[mkultra]

104. you have it backwards

People who are bigots believe that interracial marriage and gay marriage are morally wrong.

[Withywindle]

174. No, it goes both ways.

What makes someone a bigot? Holding bigoted beliefs. That's it. That's what does it.

Someone who holds Christian beliefs is a Christian. Someone who holds progressive beliefs is a progressive. And someone who holds bigoted beliefs is a bigot. It's not complicated. The cause and effect is irrelevant.

[Rebubula]

70. Meh...

Bigoted or not...people that find gay marriage immoral tend to be assholes. In fact, people that worry about other people's 'morals' (who the fuck decides what is good and bad anyway?) tend to be assholes.

[Orsino]

71. Inarguably bigoted.

Disdain for same-sex couples is bigotry, no matter how much one otherwise pretends to respect them individually.

[jonnyblitz]

72. of please, this is a no brainer. OF COURSE it is.

it's sad how you "contortionists' try to rationalize otherwise.

[Bluenorthwest]

74. People are often comfortable holding bigoted attitudes

while being highly uncomfortable having their attitudes described as what they are. If your 'faith' makes you bigoted, you are still bigoted. Every racist in American pointed to the Bible to support not just racism but slavery. The slave owners did not think of themselves as bigoted, but as Godly and Biblical and doing their part as intended, and indeed as codified in the Bible. Today's religionist bigots are no different in any way.

[Phoonzang]

77. Morals are stupid.

I prefer ethics.

[redqueen]

78. I don't see how it could be interpreted any other way. (nt)

[Soylent Brice]

83. YES, bigoted, beyond a doubt.

[dionysus]

84. it could be bigoted, or ignorance, or fear, usually a combination of the three.

[ccharles000]

86. yes

[Nicholas D Wolfwood]

88. Yeah, it really is.

I don't see any good way around that.

[slackmaster]

91. I believe in most cases it is a misinformed opinion

If you believe that sexual orientation is usually the result of a conscious choice, it's natural to apply a moral judgement to it.

[dionysus]

94. or if you're dumb enough to think "teh gay" is contagious.

[mkultra]

106. yes, in these cases, its just foul ignorance

But some believe that it is a natural disposition and yet still in need of suppression. These people are bigots.

[Withywindle]

173. But even if it's a choice, why would it be a bad choice?

Exactly how does a gay couple harm anyone else just by being who they are?

Religion is certainly a choice, but discrimination against a particular religious group in the law is commonly understood to be bigotry.

[Starbucks Anarchist]

95. Yes.

It doesn't matter how the bigotry is couched (i.e., that "Love the sinner, hate the sin" crap); that doesn't make it more acceptable.

[CTyankee]

99. Bigoted people are, in greater and lesser degrees. all deranged individuals, IMO.

If it ends up being directed at other human beings, it is bigotry and is itself morally wrong. You can be "morally opposed" to the death penalty or war without wishing harm to people who support the death penalty and war.

[mkultra]

107. Bigotry is Heuristic tool for simple minds

limited mental capacity is often times rooted in some sort of mental defect.

[anonymous171]

102. No. However, believing that gays should not have equal rights is a bigoted opinion. nt

[ruggerson]

156. marriage equality is equal rights

[anonymous171]

161. I know. If you believe that gay marriage is immoral, then don't do it.

If you don't want the government to offer equal rights to gays just because they are gay, then you are a bigot.

[ruggerson]

162. well that makes sense

[Freddie Stubbs]

105. Are you asking if President Obama's opinion on gay marriage is a morally wrong a bigoted opinion?

:shrug:

[ZombieHorde]

108. I am asking about everybody who holds that opinion, including Obama, Clinton, Biden, etc. nt

[cboy4]

109. Wow, look at all of the usual suspects in this thread!!!

It's like the usual suspects have a warning alert implant chip installed.

[LostinVA]

110. Damien -- answer the white courtesy phone!

[cboy4]

112. None!

:kick:

[ZombieHorde]

111. Usual suspects for what? nt

[cboy4]

113. 26 people, as I write this, believe discriminating against

same sex couples is not bigoted.

And while not every one of those people who voted that way had the guts to explain why, I recoognize some of the people who did write.

[ruggerson]

121. I could probably name them blindfolded

[ZombieHorde]

115. For the record, I voted "yes". nt

[Kaleva]

117. many worked for, donated money to and voted for known "bigot"

Yet President Obama, according to the comments of many here at DU and from my own understanding, could not be a member himself of DU given his views on gay marriage. A person could try and say that the alternative to Obama being President was much worse (McCain) but that's an invalid argument as he would have easily won anyways without your vote, time and money.

Maybe some here didn't sell out on their principles and they supported and voted for a third party candidate or didn't vote at all. Some may have thought that the gay marriage issue was just a minor one compared to others. Some may believe that marriage ought to be restricted to a single man and a single woman but that it ought to be left up to each state as how best to deal with the issue. Then there may be a few who think that gay marriage is immoral and ought not to be legal anywhere in the US.

[La Lioness Priyanka]

122. i cant vote for a bigot, if i feel that it is the best hope for the most people

just because i am not being selfish doesn't excuse or justify someone's bigotry

[Starry Messenger]

134. I'm unclear why you keep bringing this up.

Many of us often criticize Obama's stated (bigoted) views on gay marriage. Who knows if he would have "won easily" or not? I guess we'll find out next time, because if things don't start to go better in a few months, I won't be doing it again in 2012. Here for you is a sample of his campaign language:

"...As your President, I will use the bully pulpit to urge states to treat same-sex couples with full
equality in their family and adoption laws. I personally believe that civil unions represent the best
way to secure that equal treatment. But I also believe that the federal government should not
stand in the way of states that want to decide on their own how best to pursue equality for gay and
lesbian couples — whether that means a domestic partnership, a civil union, or a civil marriage.
Unlike Senator Clinton, I support the complete repeal of the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA)
– a position I have held since before arriving in the U.S. Senate. While some say we should repeal
only part of the law, I believe we should get rid of that statute altogether. Federal law should not
discriminate in any way against gay and lesbian couples, which is precisely what DOMA does. I
have also called for us to repeal Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell, and I have worked to improve the Uniting
American Families Act so we can afford same-sex couples the same rights and obligations as
married couples in our immigration system."


emphasis mine.

http://www.gayrightswatch.com/2008/02/barack-obamas-letter-to-gay-lesbian.html

It sounded at least promising enough that I wasn't selling out my principles. However his actions since then have been lacking to me. And yes, although you ask this nearly every time I see you post: per Skinner

Obama, Biden, etc. would not be welcome here because of their stated views on gay marriage.

[Kaleva]

159. Isn't it odd though

that some have been tombstoned for being overly critical of Obama and/or Democrats in general but President Obama himself would not be welcome here because of his views on gay marriage? It just doesn't jive to me considering President Obama is the number one Dem in the land.

I do bring this up often in threads which are about gay marriage but I post most often on other subjects and read quite a bit in the Gun sub-forum.

[mkultra]

160. skinner has also said that Obama is the most gay friendly president yet

and that his stance on gay marriage is heavily nuanced due to his position. I have serious doubts that if Obama wanted to post here, he would be denied. In fact, i would say that to assume so would be ridiculous.

[Starry Messenger]

163. Funny.

I would hope all of you who post so passionately in regard of gun rights are just as passionate in defense of all equal rights. Sadly the gun forum seems to miss the point so often in this regard. And in point of fact, most of the recent tombstonees have been people deemed too much critical of Obama on gay rights, AFAIK. President Obama is President. That may make him #1 Democrat in the land, but that does not make him the most Progressive person in the country. DU is supposed to be in support of left ideals, not of party, per se.

[bigwillq]

118. Yes

:mad:

[La Lioness Priyanka]

119. if you oppose it because you think gays are inferior, then yes

if you oppose it because you are opposed to marriage for whatever reason, then no.

[Hippo_Tron]

123. Only to the extent that you try to make others live by your morals

If you think gay marriage is morally wrong and choose not to get one yourself then that's not bigoted. If you have a problem with others doing it, then it's bigotry.

[yawnmaster]

126. Is it bigoted to believe that it is not bigoted to have the opinion...

that gay marriage is morally wrong?
sort of like a derivative of a derivative.

[LittleBlue]

133. Unquestionably

[berni_mccoy]

136. I think it's an uninformed or an opinion that seeks not to understand.

It certainly can be held by bigoted people, but I think more of the time, it's because people are uninformed and do not want to bother with trying to understand.

[JerseygirlCT]

137. Yes

You cannot put gay people aside as "less than" without being bigoted.

Of course, the rationale is even less worthy if you move to the issue of civic marriage. In that case, there aren't even trumped up reasons for which to deny people equal rights.

[Skittles]

140. of course it is

[donco6]

149. Unquestionably.

It's a bigoted, baseless opinion. It's a human being's responsibility to inform him/herself about why you believe the way you do - so no excuses for "it's how I was raised." And bigoted opinions come from bigots. "You shall know them by their fruit."

[omega minimo]

151. Question points up how gender roles and bigotry toward women are directly related to gay marriage

[JI7]

157. many people's morality is based on bigotry

[TankLV]

158. YES.

There is not other valid explaination.

Period.

[Lorien]

169. Yes. Being gay is no more a "choice" than being Black, Asian, White,

Mexican, French, Canadian (as in a Nationality being a place of birth) left handed, or having a genius I.Q: it's something that's out of a person's hands completely. I do believe that being gay, lesbian or bi is genetic. I have many gay and Lesbian family members on my mother's side of the family and none on my father's side. And no, I don't think that the "family culture" on either side was an "influence". My dad's side is urban, Methodist or atheist. My mom's side is Mennonite and rural. To me saying that one is against gay marriage is the same as saying that one is against mixed race marriages or seeing blondes and redheads marry one another. It's a backwards view based on bigotry and ignorance.