Extra condition as in, something I didn't say previously in this thread? I have been consistent in my argument throughout this thread.

From post 627, in response to your inital question: "I would say that a bigoted position carries with it irrational and unjustifiable reasons for holding said view,Hating something for no good reason might be a good way to put it."

Let's take it from the top:

A definition of the word "bigot": : a person who is 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


A definition of the word Obstinate: "perversely adhering to an opinion, purpose, or course in spite of reason, arguments, or persuasion"

A definition of the word reason: a rational ground or motive.


So again, how is one of the conditions of being a bigot (at least according to MV) not having irrational hatred?

I've found a dictionary that pushes the terms further than "any other dictionary"? You are grasping at straws here.

Even if that were true, so what? Why do you get to decide which definitions are more valid then others? It's not like there is any kind of consensus. The fact that it appears in a dictionary makes the definition valid, I'm sorry if that gets in the way of the point you are trying to make.

Someone explain to me how the following is different:

"It's not that I don't think black/brown people shouldn't have the same rights as white people, I just don't think they should be called citizens. I want to give them equal rights, but I want to call them X instead of citizens."

When I ask for someone to tell me how it's different, I'm being genuine. I feel like I may be missing something but right now I can't see the difference.

After learning more about your position through the conversation, I've noted that your concept of "hatred" is what appears to be amiss (#662). It's as if you've addressed everything but that.

The purpose of your strict adherence to this particular line of reasoning appears to be nothing more than your desire to insist that people who believe that homosexual behavior is immoral are hateful people. Now despite the animosity that you've expressed, and your insistence on labeling these people as hateful, you don't consider yourself "hateful" towards them on the basis that you're not trying take their rights away.

I find the whole thing very odd.

The difference is between legal concepts and social concepts.

It is possible to have legal citizenship and be a social outcast. It's also possible to lack legal citizenship and be welcomed socially.

In this case, "citizen" is a better legal term and something like "member of society" is a better social term.

Of course you can be intolerant of cheating. You can be intolerant of lactose. Given the definition of bigot that is roughly 'a person who is intolerant of other races/ethnic group', the intolerance is implicitly prejudicial or unjustified because justified intolerance (if it were possible to be justifiably intolerant of a religion or an ethnic group) is then obviously not necessarily negative. This is why your problem with 'bigot' the word is difficult for me to grasp. Bigot is supposed to be a pejorative term. If bigot is being used against people with justified intolerance of X, then the word is being abused and misapplied. There's no pressing issue about what the dictionary says it means. That's why I think the relevant issue for this thread is whether there are justifiable reasons to think homosexuality immoral, or whether there are justifiable reasons to think SSM should not be legalized.

To move this along. Perhaps you can make a good case that there are justifiable reasons to think homosexuality is immoral. If that's so, then I concede that a person who has justifiable reasons to think homosexuality is immoral (or who can justify opposition to gay marriage) is not a bigot. In the end, I'd much rather argue about what it takes to have a justifiable moral belief rather than argue about what bigot means.

I can't anticipate what you're going to say, neither about the actual issue nor about whether I've defined myself into a position that precludes you disagreeing with it. Answer if you think it's relevant, don't if you don't.

If it helps, this is (off the top of my head) what I'd say if I were trying to persuade somebody that homosexuality is not immoral: Foremost, it's not a choice. A significant percentage of human beings are not sexually attracted to the opposite gender; they are, in fact, attracted to the same gender. Since sexual expression and fulfillment is a fundamental aspect of being a human being, to condemn or proscribe behavior that effects sexual expression and fulfillment must require an exigent rationale. Second, I would want to deconstruct why some people think homosexuality is immoral. Does it come from guttural revulsion, does it come from a religious text or tradition, does it come from considerations about families and social stability? In my view, none of these things can ultimately justify condemnation or proscription of homosexuality. Certainly, this would have to be debated. Thirdly, (this is more about the legality of SSM I suppose) these relationships are consensual, though this is not necessarily sufficient, we tend to err on the side of consent in free societies.

Is 'flying a kite is immoral' an acceptable moral premise or can we think it through some and try to say something more about why we think it should serve as a premise or not?

I'm not really qualified or informed enough to talk about this legalistically. If you support civil unions for gay couples with rights to adopt, joint tax returns, inherit, visit in hospitals but happen to be merely opposed to these unions being called marriages, then I'd be more interested in the fundamental question of "What is a marriage"? If you oppose civil unions for gay couples, then the traditional meaning of marriage is moot, since you are objecting to the institution of civil unions and not a misapplication of the marriage concept.

I'm not following.

Can you apply what you're saying to gay marriage and clear things up a bit?

(sorry )

Do you feel that the act of wanting to take away someone's rights, and deny them equality is a charteristic of someone who likes that person? I don't

I don't think anyone has said that disagreement is the same thing as intolerance.

intolerance:

unwillingness or refusal to tolerate or respect contrary opinions or beliefs, persons of different races or backgrounds, etc.

a : unwilling to grant equal freedom of expression especially in religious matters
b : unwilling to grant or share social, political, or professional rights : bigoted

Because definition #1 appears in a dictionary, it is a valid definition. Q.E.D. regarding everything I was arguing for above! Even the dictionary recognizes a distinction between traditional marriage and "same-sex marriage," as the primary meaning of 'marriage' is a relationship between a man and a woman.

If you want to take the "cherry-picking favorable definitions from dictionaries approach," then I'll be happy to receive your concession concerning the definition of marriage.

EDIT: I'm not actually making an argument from the dictionary: just trying to point out how silly it is to do so. In a debate, it is best for the debaters to attempt to come to some agreement about the meaning of the terms being used; otherwise disagreement can remain no more than nominal and it will not be clear exactly where people really disagree. In this thread there are disagreements both about the meaning of bigotry and about the meaning of marriage; I tried to engage in a discussion about the meaning of the latter, with mixed results.

The opposite of "to like" is not "to hate." It's not really a linear scale. (If you're not for us...)

Also, I've pointed out (but you clearly don't agree and I doubt there's anything I can do to convince you of this), there's no "taking away" of rights, and there's no "denial of equality." Gay marriage is a fundamentally new legal privilege.

Edit: I continue to argue that your use of "hate" is political rhetoric, like "hating" old people when you reduce their benefits. Your statement here is very similar: If you don't hate old people, why are you stealing from them?

Marriage is used both as a legal contract and a social contract. It would seem to me that the issue at hand is legal (ie, pertaining to that which the law can give).

There is a social acceptance of gay couples living together and that sort of thing (in that they can live as a couple), but there is not a legal acceptance of them in the sense that they are granted various privileges as a "married" couple.

My position is that it would be useful to separate out the social contract from the legal contract in the same way that "citizen" and "member of society" are different words that carry different meanings.

Regarding gay marriage: I've already put forth a fairly robust position regarding marriage as a male-female relationship from a historical and sociological perspective. I've noted how my view is consistent with the view of polygamy as being multiple marriages and pointed out that the existence of same-sex relationships is not sufficient for them to be called marriages because there is no evidence that they have been viewed as being equivalent to their different-sex counterparts.

The only real argument that has been raised against this is, "Well, I don't like that."

Regarding morality: It all depends on the basis of morality that is granted.

If I were to take an evolutionary position, then the primary goal of existence is reproduction. On this basis, homosexual behavior does not appear to support that end, and can be deemed immoral on that basis. (This evolutionary-type argument is used in many, many situations. It's used as an argument against incest (limited gene pool), an argument for the existence of empathy (we do better as a species if we can understand others), and so forth.)

It can be argued on the basis of biology, insofar as the biological parts have the function of causing reproduction, and that it is a misuse of those parts to use them in other ways. The argument presented ITT against this is "*I* don't have sex for reproduction" but this does not really affect the biological perspective because it's arguing from a different basis (sociological).

So again, it all depends on what basis you're allowed to use to argue this. My primary concern is that you position would boil down to the following.

The first point here is that while "homosexuality" may not be a choice, the decision to engage in homosexual behavior is. This is relevant because "pedophilia" is not a choice in the exact same way, yet we hold pedophiles to a moral standard that goes against their sexual attractions. Therefore, this is not a sufficient argument for the morality of homosexual behaviors.

In your view, what can? This is the thing I've been trying to get at. On what basis will you ALLOW an argument for the immorality of homosexuality (or anything at all)?

You can disagree with this as a moral premise (that is, YOU don't accept it), but I don't really know why it would be the case that you can conclude that this cannot be a moral premise. Basically, what you're trying to argue is that you have the moral authority to tell others what moral basis they can and cannot use for their own understanding of the world. I don't think this is a fair position to take.

You *can* take the position that in order for us to function as a society, we should try to find places of moral agreement, if possible. Strict Mormons, for example, don't consume caffeine (I believe it's a moral issue to them). But their refusal to take caffeine does not extend the idea that nobody should ingest caffeine. For the broad range of people who think homosexual activity is immoral, I doubt you will find but a very narrow slice who believe that it should be outlawed. So we can agree to allow it to happen (on some the basis of "it's not hurting anyone who is not willingly engaging in the activity" or "it doesn't have a large enough negative impact on society to allow it to happen") even though we disagree on the morality of the behavior itself.

Then at least with me, this is the fundamental question. I've presented my argument for this already.

Meaning what?

What is a social contract? Is it real? Real as in it has some major relevance irl for gay couples. If not, we can just throw it out of this court and proceed with the real matter at hand.. the law. So you're saying you would not change the law?