No I don't think the arguments surrounding the institution of marriage hold any weight, if we need to discriminate on grounds of sexual orientation to protect an institution then the institution isn't worth protecting. I also don't accept that someones marriage means something different when the right to be married is extended to homosexual couples.

I am almost disappointed that you therefore can't try to explain to me why people find value in this argument.

please try to be more bigoted in future when it is convenient to my personal interest :P

What is the point of the intenets when people agree

Just so I understand it, your objection is "things will change"? I dont get it. First why is that an objection? Its more of an observation. An objection is saying that you object to something, you dont like it. Are you saying that you dont like change in general? Or just this change? If its this change specifically, then you need to be more specific about what you dont like about it. It seems like you are trying to avoid appearing bigoted by focusing on "change" rather than the real reasons behind why you think this change is bad.

edit: Im not saying you ARE bigoted, or even your reasons for disliking the change are bigoted, just that maybe you feel that you cant express the real reasons for fear of being called bigoted?

I'd like to step back for a moment and repeat what I said:

I believe this statement stands for itself. When people ask for examples of this, it's not because they do not believe there are reasons, it's because they want to dispute the reasons point-for-point as they are presented. I really don't want to argue whether it's right or wrong, only that there are reasons other than hatred for people to disapprove of gay-marriage. Frankly, it seems strange to me that this is even a debate. I’m not speaking about the gay-marriage debate, but whether or not there are reasons why people do not support it.

If you believe that there are no objections other than hatred, it says to me that you have not bothered to do much research on the subject, or you simply disagree with the objections, in either case, me presenting an argument is futile. It was never my aim to defend the position, just to say that there is a position, but everyone has already rejected even the idea that a position is possible. I think everyone should consider that line of thought, and why this conversation is flawed to begin with. I cannot even suggest that there are objections, not that the objections themselves are valid, something which I’ve never said and something which I never wanted to do defend.

I can present some objections if you like, but I’m not sure what good that will do. People will simply say “boo inequality” and we’re back to square one, and I never attempted to say that gay-marriage should be banned, or that I believe it should be banned, only that people have other reasons beyond "boo gay people". If you can't concede that, I'm not sure this is a worth while conversation.

I dont know if this is a response to my post? I will assume that it is

I explicitly stated that I didnt think that you were bigoted, or that necessarily your reasons for opposing change were bigoted.

Of course there are reasons other than "boo gays" for opposing it. Do these reasons stand up? Are they just cover for "boo gay" bigotry?

( for example, I would consider "the bible says homosexuality is immoral" as a reason for opposing gay marriage)

Are you saying that you think the change will be bad? If so, why cant you outline why you think it will be bad?


Why would they say "boo inequality" unless it is, indeed, inequality? I have never said there arent other reasons. Are you saying these reasons are unable to be defended against "boo inequality" accusations?

Well, originally sounded like all you we saying is that there are people who oppose gay marriage. This we already knew. You also say that allowing gay marriage will change culture, which is not very relevant as continuing to ban it will also change culture. You now say we should recognize the opinions of people who oppose gay marriage and why they think this. Well, don't you think those people should do the same towards those who do not agree with them?

I'm not trying to put you between a rock and a hard place, but that people have opinions and that actions have consequences we all know. This has no special consequence for only one side of the gay marriage debate.

There were too many people to respond to, so I just responded in general, it wasn't directed at you, specifically, so please don't take what didn't apply to you as an attack on my behalf.

Of course everyone should see the other side, I'm not implying the opposite.

My argument was originally aimed the Kermit, not the whole gay-marriage debate. He implied that the reason to oppose it are only those that affect one directly, that since it doesn't affect "me", that I shouldn't care. I only stated that there are many reasons to not support gay marriage that aren't selfish per se, and it's the mischaracterization of the opposition which I consider a strawman, that only bigots can possibly oppose gay marriage.

I would hardly say this is ignored at all. For the pro marriage equality side the whole point is to change the culture so it isn't just marriages, but a much larger cultural acceptance. And on the anti marriage equality side, the idea that the gays are ruining our culture and destroying the whole institution of marriage and good christian society also is pretty common. They don't call it the "culture wars" for nothing - everyone agrees it is going to change the culture. It is just that some people think it will do so in a good way and others disagree.

Oh really? Only read him a couple times and found him to be less well written, wrong on the issues, but just as preachy as his brother

It's not always ignored, but I have seen this strawman enough to make me want to point it out. With regards to the actual argument of for or against, it's completely subjective, I can see both sides have a point, but like Peter Hitchens has said, "It is an extraordinarily small issue which affects an extraordinarily small number of people."

He actually doesn't speak about it anymore, he doesn't consider it useful or important, and sees it as a part of something bigger. I agree he is preachy, and kind of crotchety, but I think he presents some good arguments. He's always been articulate from what I've read or heard, even though he presents a lot of things from the perspective of Britain, which I'm completely unfamiliar with.

So I consider only bigots opposing gay marriage somewhat a tautology. It reflects a bigotry no matter how people want to dress it up.

I don't know that you wish to argue that it represents a significant cultural change while also holding

I don't think it can be both. It affects you in that it represents the culture in which you live, if you live in a less discriminatory environment that affects you.

I don't think you need to be a bigot. I think you can believe that gay marriage will ultimately be worse for our society in general, but still understand and accept that people will inevitably choose to do that which favours them. You don't need to hate gay people to think that opening this door will have an impact which you believe to be negative. For instance, I personally think it's not beneficial given my own perspective of the world, but I'm not going to force anyone to do anything they don't want. People can do what they want behind closed doors, but the overall effect will eventually impact the following generations. This is just my perspective, I can accept that someone who is gay wishes to marry, and that's fine, have at it.

Hitchens prefaces this by saying gay marriage is part of a greater trend of liberalism, and what he refers to as the cultural and moral revolution which consists of several things, including feminism, drugs laws, the re-definition of marriage, etc., etc. That is, the number of gay people (referring to Britain) is so small, and the even smaller number of those who want to get married, is minimal. He goes into detail about why the government in Britain brings this up as a political strategy, and why he does not feel the need to get involved in the issue.

I tend to agree that gay marriage is in part, part of a new movement in society that focuses on a new direction. Gay marriage in itself is a minor issue that affects only a few people, but it's part of a greater trend, which is difficult to separate.

It's when you start describing what a worse society looks like that the bigotry is exposed. I'm not necessarily talking about you but all you are saying here is that it's not beneficial a number of ways without saying how. How is continuing to discriminate good for our society? In what way does the continued distinction between heterosexual and homosexual couples benefit our society? What does this worse society that permits same sex marriage look like?

Can you parse this a little bit more, please? Do you believe that holding the position that homosexual behavior is immoral constitutes bigotry?

I fail to see how someone who does support gay marriage, and hence believes that conservative values are worse, is not also a bigot. I personally believe that conservative values are better than liberal values, it's just an opinion, just like those who favour a more openly sexual society and wish to redefine marriage and allow same-sex couples to adopt children, feel that is better. Can I say that they are bigoted against Christians and traditional values? I'm not sure how only one side can be intolerant.

For me personally, I'm fine with gay people getting married, just like I'm fine with people not getting married at all, and having sexual relationships. I simply don't think it's the best way, it doesn't mean that I hate anyone, this is still the same mischaracterization I have been alluding to. If being intolerant means having an opinion on what is better, than everyone is equally intolerant, everyone, after all, is describing what a better society looks like.

Indirectly probably. If them holding that position results in them advocating discriminatory treatment towards homosexuals then yes.

What is bigoted about holding the position that it is wrong to discriminate against gay people?

This does not have to be about a wider discussion of liberal v conservative values. This can be about this one question, why is society worse off with same sex marriage?

I would also like the reasoning behind why society is worse off with same sex marriage?

Can you state what you mean by "bigot"? Unfortunately, that word (to some people) has simply become a negative label (it's bad to be a "bigot") without being clear about what that label represents. Some people mean it to be that bigot is one who *behaves* in a certain way while others hold that bigotry is about what one *believes* about someone else. Some dictionaries describe it as an intolerance of other beliefs, whereas other dictionaries include a sense of superiority.

There are reasons, what I wanted to avoid is making this a debate specifically about the reasons. It should be enough that there are reasons, and they will be subjective, so they are in essence, irrelevant.

Every side you take on an issue involves discriminating against something or someone, but it doesn't mean you are intolerant of them, necessarily. If I am against legalizing marijuana, does it mean I am a bigot against weed smokers? If I am against abortion, does it means I discriminate against women? If I am against welfare, does it mean I hate the lower class? It could mean that, but it needn't. These things open the door to greater consequences (in some people's opinion) and are not solely rooted in the immediate results of not allowing someone to do something because you don't like them.

I feel like Naked has been able to answer this to satisfaction. It's pretty strange, though, to see people who seem to not possess a modicum of awareness of other people's concerns regarding this issue. It's disconcerting, to say the least. Because the flipside of the argument that is currently used here is this: how does having gay marriage legal effect YOUR life?

If I were to say that to you, you would be offended even.

But somehow that is the simpleminded response that conservatives/christians have to deal with concerning this issue.

I suppose if you don't have children, this general lack of awareness can be excused. But I really don't like to excuse it. Even before I had children I made a conscious decision to never drink and drive, for example.

And the truth is- if I never had children, I probably wouldn't care as much. But when childless young adults (who are mostly liberal) are in league with discontented atheists and such, and these are the opposition- any sane, rational, half-normal person has cause to be concerned for the future.

Basically, I find it suspicious when someone makes this argument, and they say: but how does it affect you?

They can somehow place themselves behind the eyes of a homosexual man or woman, but cannot do the same for a christian parent, in a christian country, and probably having grown up within a christian family!! That is highly alarming.

Firstly I think your posing of the bolded is flawed, you are treating discriminating against a persons opinion and discriminating against a person equivalent and they aren't. It's also okay to be intolerant of certain views all intolerances are not equal. Would it be wrong to be intolerant of the slaveowners opinion in favour of the slaves.

I understand you not wanting to make it about the reasons but unless you interrogate those reasons you may fail to see where the bigotry lies. You don't need to describe the reasons it's worse just explain what worse looks like.

I suspect where you are coming from is a perspective that it is somehow wrong to be gay, or it would be better if no one was. I understand if that's a part of your worldview and I apologise if it isn't. However despite this you are reluctant to defend actually discriminating against gay people as per your comments above

I'm alright with this, and to answer Aaron's question above this may be a case where believing homosexuality immoral does not result in bigotry.

The last time I checked, pot-heads smoke pot, and don't merely have an opinion on smoking pot.

Had no idea we were granting personhood status based on sexual behavior, either.

I'll just go with wiki given it fits the context I first quoted it in.

If you wish to more explicitly direct one of your definitions towards me work away. You'd be wrong like but I'm okay with that,.

again, no one is accusing you of being intolerant or bigoted (yet ).
So, why will society be worse of with gay marriage?

I understand what you're saying about confusing a person's opinion, and person, but I think you're making the same mistake. There is a difference also in discriminating against a person, and the consequences of a person's action. To take the example of marijuana, not wanting pot legalized because of the consequences has no personal connotations on you as a pot smoker. Bigotry by the definition you have stated has no necessary function in this thought process at all. If it is present, that is entirely independent of anything.