You are banging that drum pretty hard. Here is my trepidation in explaining this world view: It is entirely subjective and can easily be dismissed. It is no more productive to the conversation than saying "boo gay marriage", and people are often offended by it. I think this conversation can be understood just fine without the specifics of one argument or reasoning behind not wanting to support gay marriage, and still clarify if one is being a bigot or not. Finally, my argument was not to oppose gay marriage, only to suggest that there is a strawman in suggesting the only reason to object is that of hatred.

What do you say, is this enough to satisfy the question?

This is fine. I'm just seeking clarity.

The operative part of your definition appears to be "treats or views other people with fear, distrust or hatred." I don't really think that this is adequate for making your claim that opposing gay marriage is tautological with bigotry.

Unless you are prepared to discuss the actual issue and how a society with gay marriage is worse than a society without this goes nowhere. You want to discriminate against the consequences of a persons action without stating what those consequences are. I'm perfectly okay with discussing these consequences and comparing them to the consequences of denying same sex marriage.

I'm trying to point out that by using the word "bigotry" to talk about consequences of certain positions is highly problematic.

You shouldn't throw that word around if you expect to have the conversation you're claiming to want. It's a non-starter and doesn't lead to the desired type of discussion. It's basically starting things off with a straight ad-hominem (and is likely a false portrayal of the underlying position).

If you want to have a consequentialist discussion about the merits of gay marriage, then start from there.

They are generally characteristics of discrimination or give potential to discrimination and I don't think I need consider the list exhaustive.

However given the post quoted below which I'm now finished with I'm also perfectly happy to defend the statement that discrimination on grounds of sexual orientation is bigoted. Irrespective of whether it's based on hatred distrust fear or some other characteristic some flawed moral framework religious or ideological.

That was a response to Naked Rectitude, you posted inbetween but after I started replying. It's kinda clear if you read up, sometimes it's not all about you.

Fwiw, I'm more than glad to step aside and let Aaron continue for me, he's clearly smarter, less verbose, and more importantly hasn't dug himself in a hole

You've not dug yourself into a hole you've just given yourself something to think about.

You are free to use the term "bigot" how you want. But what you're doing here is basically equivalent to those who say that if you don't support gay marriage then you're homophobic. It's playing the role of guilt by association rather than addressing the person's viewpoint on its merit (or lack thereof).

I maintain that your usage is highly problematic.

I'm joking, although you do give me something to think about, I am very confident I am not a bigot or act and think out of hatred. I simply don't think it's necessary to expound on the opposing views, especially since they are not exactly hidden. I can if necessary.

Let's take a slightly different look at that wiki definition.

It seems perfectly plausible to call a bigot on that definition a person who has a prejudice that results in unequal treatment directed towards another based on any of those characteristics.

This really isn't problematic.

I have no particular horse in that particular consequentialist race. I hold that getting government out of the business of marriage is probably the best choice in the long term, and I view marriage as defined by government to be a government contract that has no particular bearing on religious concepts and definitions beyond a shared word (so that the government can define the terms however it chooses).

The most I would have to contribute is that the expansion of the definition of marriage is likely to cause an increase in the amount of spousal benefits paid by companies and the government. It will also probably cause a short term increase in litigation and expenses associated to that, as different organizations are forced to reconcile their policies and procedures to accommodate an alternate definition of marriage than the one that was assumed when establishing policies and procedures.

Given the available evidence to the contrary, the statement that I'm less verbose is likely to be an incorrect evaluation of my preferred linguistic patterns.

I agree that prejudices play a role. But I disagree that this is the operative part of the definition. For example, calling someone prejudiced is not implying that they are a bigot, but calling someone bigoted necessarily implies that they have a prejudice. If you want to call someone prejudiced, that's a completely different thing.

Furthermore, unequal treatment of people is not the same as treating someone with "fear, distrust, or hatred." If you want to talk about people being treated unequally, then talk about unequal treatment.

So I disagree that your reading of the definition is sufficient to make your case, and I maintain that your usage of the word is problematic for the reasons I've given.

I don't need you to I think I understand them enough but what strikes me is your lack of conviction in proposing that other people live by your beliefs. I get you may think it better something doesn't exist but given it does you seem to have found a way to accommodate it without trying to discriminate against it. I'm alright with that and so I'm not pressing you I just think that it may be interesting for you to consider what may appear a contradiction.

I'm going to try to turn this conversation on its side: Why are you so intent on using the word "bigot" to describe the opposing viewpoint?

I really have no horse in the actual race myself, my observation was more on how the race is judged, but I've been put in a place where I'm asked to pick a favourite. It was never my intention to debate the merits of this, especially in a place which is highly liberal. I just believe that there is a fallacy in reducing the opposition to being fuelled by hatred, as opposed to personal interpretation.

Ive seen you be very succinct while explaining things, and it's something which I often struggle with. Was not meant as a criticism, just messing around about how this conversation evolved.

I don't think we need to consider that list of operatives exhaustive and so for brevity consider all operatives that result in unequal treatment a result of bigotry. If those prejudices don't manifest in discriminatory practices I'm not calling them bigoted.

You may not think that consistent with the wiki definition, I do.

Can you explain what you mean by my lack of conviction in proposing that other people live by my beliefs? I'm genuinely trying to see your side.

Okay. But then you've strayed from the definition.

Clearly you do, and clearly I don't. I think the more interesting conversation will come in why you are intent on using that word instead of other words. I think that's far more interesting that the conversation about the meaning of the word itself.

You seem to be admitting that you're expanding the meaning of the word beyond the definition. You want an inclusive definition for bigotry. There are other words that already say the things you're saying, like "prejudiced" or "discriminatory practices" or "unequal treatment." Why are you so intent on holding onto that word in your description?

Don't fall into the trap, naked. What usually happens is that they are hot to go, until the going gets going, and you begin to cite statistics, studies, figures and facts that are inevitably accompanied by ironclad logic and coolly-presented objective argument...

Then one of a few things happens.

1. A gay channel regular will pop in and effect a public emotional breakdown which will leave you looking like a giant arse.

2. They will continue to goad you in and beat the drum, even with super-admin and such popping in with guarantees that you will not be banned, but ultimately, they consider such posting material to fall under a very loosely-defined "anti-gay" policy (Cwocwoc cough).

or 3. Their rigid, predetermined beliefs based on misplaced emotion begin to crack and fracture, and they lash out at you (see 1 or 2).

That was a joke.

Thanks for the heads up, I really have nothing to hide or any reason to suspect that I will be banned for any reason. To be honest, the main reason I don't expound anything is because I don't want to offend anyone, and since I don't particularly believe this issue to be more important than others, my explaining it will no doubt look like I'm attacking gay people, and will put me in the category of the run-of-the-mill hateful American Christian, which I am not, or at least, I do not believe I am. I'm actually not even American, and I suspect that there is more friction there than I'm aware of, another reason I want to be careful when addressing this.

So, you say there are reasons to oppose gay marriage, you arent willing to share those reasons, and you admit that the reasons can easily be dismissed?

And yet you want me to believe that there are ( reasonable?) reasons to oppose gay marriage other than "boo gay marriage" ?

I am not pressing you in order to be able to label you a bigot, it just seems theres a bit of cognitive dissonance going on .

I would be interested in the statistics, studies, figures and facts , accompanied by ironclad logic and coolly presented objective argument

I am guessing that you arent going to provide them though?

I don't actually expect you to believe they are reasonable reasons, just that they are not fuelled by hatred. The reasons themselves are subjective, just like most things with two different sides.

Fwiw, my personal opinions are probably not as severe as you believe. I simply don't agree with it, and don't think it's morally right, but I'm not about to put any effort in preventing it. If gay people want to get married, I say have at it, I just don't agree with it.

There are lots of things I don't agree with that I don't go out of my way to prevent, I don't go to the bar and slap the drinks out of people's hand, it is arbitrary to focus on one issue and pick it as some greater immoral act. I don't support the legalization of marijuana, I believe that people should not have sex outside of marriage, and on and on. It doesn't mean I'm going to rally around it, it just means that I don't think it's right. If you think it's right, that's fair, I just find that the general air is becoming more intolerant, where I'm not even allowed to say that I think it's wrong, and if I do, I must be a bigot. I don't think this is the case.