The equal protection clause of the 14th more or less guarantees a right to receive equal treatment under the law, so in that respect, this is the "right" being violated. It's something that is annoying when you discuss rights as the anti-gay marriage people shout over you "marriage isn't a right!" which ignores the actual right being violated.

I noted before, if the government wants to get out of the marriage business altogether, that's fine with me. However, if they provide those marriage benefits to one section of society, they are obligated to provide them to all sections.

I don't see it as a matter of belief, generally. But if we accept that, a belief like "I am superior to homosexual people" would qualify as bigotry, but a belief like "i believe homosexual people should not be allowed to marry" couldn't qualify.

If you think homosexuals should not marry, you believe you should have a privilege they shouldn't. Does that not suggest a feeling of superiority?

As I see it, the relevant definition of bigot for this debate is a person who is intolerant of or harbors contempt for certain kinds of groups of people, usually/initially religious or ethnic groups. Implicit in this definition, or at least obvious from usage, is that the intolerance or contempt is prejudicial and unjustified. Beliefs that express an inherent moral superiority of one kind of religious or ethnic group over another or condemn other religious or ethnic groups without justification are, generally, bigoted. The key question to address is whether sexual orientation is sufficiently similar to (or not dissimilar from) ethnicity or religious preference, so that unjustified intolerance or condemnation of sexual orientation is (or is not) bigotry.

I don't believe it's implicit in the definition, nor do I think it's obvious from usage EXCEPT from those who ITT believe that bigotry entails precisely these things. I continue to maintain that the word at this point is being used more as a label in order to dismiss the person's viewpoint rather than a statement of how the person maintains the view.

I barely know how to parse this. It seems to me that you hold to some sort of moral superiority over those who think homosexuality is immoral. That is, you're somehow "better" than they are because you're not subject to this particular bias. Yet you expose yourself as being biased in another way, and since you feel justified, you don't consider yourself bigoted... It's oddly self-serving. (I'm not sure where "inherent" enters the picture.)

Fundamentally, I think your errors are that you believe moral disagreement implies bigotry and that you believe you have access to the superior moral values.

You missed the edit for clarification.

Right now, much of your understanding of the situation is based upon your claim that "[You] consider it hatred."

By the way, you still have yet to answer my question.

How is it not primary, its part of the definition...

I think the attitude of someone trying to deny others equal protection under the law is a hateful act... maybe you can explain why you think this isn't justified... I did answer your question, ill find it and repost.

Edit: I am not trying to take away the rights of Christians, an act I consider to be hateful. I have not dubbed an entire group of people "immoral" on the basis of "it says so in that book that I read."

You seem to be treating the definition of bigotry as "one who acts hatefully towards others." I think this is a gross misunderstanding of the term.

You're really tied into the hatred thing. It's almost akin to political talking points where a change to Medicare means that you hate old people. I think it's non-substantive rhetoric. If I vote/act to restrict the rights of smokers, must it be an act of hate?

Again, you've redefined "bigotry" to mean something completely different from what the word actually means, so I don't believe that this really distinguishes your view as being non-bigoted. It seems to me that you are utterly intolerant of those who believe that marriage is between a man and a woman.

You don't believe that it's implicit in 'intolerance' that it's unjustified or prejudicial intolerance? Or do you deny that the relevant definition is 'person who is intolerant of or harbors contempt for...'? At any rate, I've specifically asked a couple of times (not that you're obligated to answer, I'm just saying I've asked) how a person can maintain the view that homosexuality is immoral and not be a bigot, for whatever meaning of bigot you prefer.

If a pro-life argument is right, then abortion is immoral. I may disagree with the argument, but I don't disagree that if the argument is right then abortion is immoral. If one can't justify the view that homosexuality is immoral and one persists in being either passively or actively intolerant of it, then that person is a bigot. I don't see what your objection to that is; justify the view that homosexuality is immoral, or justify the view that it's a 'moral disagreement' such that it's not condemnable to be on either side of it.

Yes, I do believe that believing in equal rights and privileges for homosexuals is morally superior to denying them, exactly as I believe that believing in equal rights and privileges for ethnic minorities is morally superior to denying them. I don't recognize a basis for 'moral disagreement' in the latter case, and I don't recognize a basis for 'moral disagreement' in the former case. I do recognize however that a lot of people may find that nonanalogous, so I'm happy to explore that side of the issue, but it doesn't seem like you want to, and that's fine it's your prerogative.

I was referring to the definition of bigotry that Aaron W had identified. Two used intolerance and one used the idea of a belief in the superiority of one's own opinions.

"having or revealing an obstinate belief in the superiority of one's own opinions and a prejudiced intolerance of the opinions of others"

? The definition of the word as defined by MW is:

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. I am doing nothing but adhering to it.

Obstinately is another key word there, fwiw.

It seems to me what's going on here is, in formulating your argument, the definitions you found didn't include the word "hatred." Ever since we've found it, you've tried to move the goalposts to say that this definition somehow doesn't measure up. It can't work this way. If you want to appeal to dictionary definitions, you can't pick and choose the specific ones which support your position.

I will also state again that it is unjustifiable hatred that I regard as bigoted....

No. I'm rather intolerant of cheating on exams.

I haven't answered yet because I'm feeling around to see whether this is a situation where you've defined yourself into the position so that it's impossible IN PRINCIPLE for this to be done. That is, I'm trying to ascertain whether this is a demand for a square circle.

What I'm able to justify depends upon what I'm able to use. In particular, I suspect that you're going to restrict the types of moral conceptions I'll be able to use. Otherwise, it would be as simple as accepting as a moral premise that homosexual acts are immoral.

It's still the same fundamental question of "What is a marriage?" I maintain that any man who can legally marry can marry any woman who can legally marry. And insofar as this is the concept of marriage, all people have access to the same legal rights. And I also maintain that it's a fundamentally new legal privilege to extend this agreement to two persons of the same gender.

Yes. It's more than simply acting "hatefully" towards another person. And I maintain that your view of "hatred" is rather odd. The word "hatred" implies a certain level of intensity which I do not believe is inherent in a moral disagreement.

I've maintained that your INTERPRETATION of the definition doesn't measure up. What I see is that you've found a dictionary that pushes the concept farther than every other dictionary, and then you've taken the idea of "hatred" to make it say something that it doesn't, and you've done this to justify your declaration that those who have a moral disagreement with you are bigots.

Do you not see yourself throwing in more conditions in order to avoid the logical consequences of the way you're using the terms? As you've defined the terms, this is essentially a true Scotsman fallacy.

Hatred = Denial of equal rights
Bigotry = Acting hatefully

But now you've thrown in the extra condition of justifiable hatred.

Edit: I believe that you overstated your position on "hatred" early on, but now you've got yourself tied to it and can't break free without going back on that.

Does disagreement imply intolerance? It seems to me that there is room to disagree without being labeled as intolerant.

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