On the Threshold of Bigotry

The notion of anything (more-or-less) goes - so long as it doesn't compromise the freedom of others to activate their own version of "anything goes" is itself an ideology. And an irrational one at that.- The principle of consent is an ideological affair ...- I was under the impression that this was about rights. Not practicalities as to the application of rights.

Why do you keep trying to tell me this is what I'm trying to do?I've told you already that I am not doing this. I don't care about your definitions of words. What I care about is regulations. Message 51
These two sentences answer your post again.We're not talking about the meanings of words. I don't know how to say that more clearly.I'll say it again without using the word 'marry' this time, since you can't seem to get past that:1. You agree that subjective regulations should be corrected.
2. The current regulation is that gays cannot get the same level of governmental recognition for the consentual relationship of their choice that straights can.
3. You cannot come up with an objective, rational reason why this regulation should exist.
4. Therefore, this is a subjective regulation.
5. Therefore (according to you, even) this regulation should be corrected so that both gays and straights can gain the same level of governmental recognition for the consentual relationship of their choice.
6. You continue to refuse that this regulation should be corrected. Even though it is subjectively in place, and you say that subjective regulations should be corrected.Please note the intentional absence of the word 'marry'. No one cares about the definition of words. The issue is that there is a subjective regulation that should be corrected. You agree that subjective regulations should be corrected. Yet you do not agree that this subjective regulation should be corrected.How do you explain this appearance of hypocrisy? We'll move on once we deal with this topic. So far, you cannot deal with this topic. Once you show that you're capable of dealing with this topic we can proceed to others.

Even when I support legalizing domestic partnerships for gays? Even when I support full civil-union rights for them? I only object to using the term "marriage" to define their domestic partnerships. I also object to using the term "patriotic" to define one's dedication to America. It's all about words and hearts”opinions”not about facts and minds.So, we're only talking about opinions here. One cannot rationally defend one's beliefs and opinions against those who irrationally hold opposing POVs, and that's a fact. What anyone happens to believe is still relevant to the ideology of assigning rights in America. That's because we still claim to be a democracy.”HM

Wrong. It's all about the meanings of words. Otherwise, the gays wouldn't be demanding their rights to legalized "marriage." They'd be happy with a DP status that was invoked especially for them to define their special case of legalized domestic partnership. Wrong again. It's all about words. If it were not then the whole problem would dissipate like hot air. And I don't remember such silly hot air back in the days when real men married real women and had real children the natural way. Today, you could be called a bigot for being so goddamn natural. And the origin of this silly hot-air balloon is certainly not raising out of the heterosexual community. This pink balloon is filled with hot air from the land of uncloseted bigotry. I'm making note of its subjective buoyancy; a key criterion.”HM

This is the problem, right here, clearly explained: Message 62

quote:

---

1. You agree that subjective regulations should be corrected.
2. The current regulation is that gays cannot get the same level of governmental recognition for the consentual relationship of their choice that straights can.
3. You cannot come up with an objective, rational reason why this regulation should exist.
4. Therefore, this is a subjective regulation.
5. Therefore (according to you, even) this regulation should be corrected so that both gays and straights can gain the same level of governmental recognition for the consentual relationship of their choice.
6. You continue to refuse that this regulation should be corrected. Even though it is subjectively in place, and you say that subjective regulations should be corrected.

---

No mention of the word "marriage".
But the problem did not 'dissipate like hot air'. The problem, and the appearance of hypocrisy, is still obviously present.Please explain this appearance of hypocrisy.Or maybe I am assuming wrongly? Perhaps you are not concerned with the hypocritical stance portrayed here?

Don't underestimate the power of words. If words were not important your objections to the definition of a word would not be so heartfelt.
By denying homosexuals a right to a word you are denying others than yourself a right to a freedom that you yourself enjoy. When the practical application of ones opinion results in the exclusion or restriction of the rights of others then that opinion needs to be rationally justified. Without rational justification for the application of law there is no democracy possible. The only possible result is conflict between "equally (in)valid" irrational ideologies.Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.

Double postEdited by Nemesis Juggernaut, : No reason given.

---

“I know where I am and who I am. I'm on the brink of disillusionment, on the eve of bitter sweet. I'm perpetually one step away from either collapse or rebirth. I am exactly where I need to be. Either way I go towards rebirth, for a total collapse often brings a rebirth." -Andrew Jaramillo

Does this qualify? Sure seems like it to me. The people that often speak out the loudest about racism ironically tend to have their own racist tendencies in the opposite direction. It's interesting that referring to something as bigotry only flows in one direction -- popular opinion.It therefore stands to reason that what we refer to as "bigotry" often is nothing more than opinion in the opposite direction of what was claimed to be bigotry in the first place.Combating bigotry with more bigotry makes about as much sense as combating racism with racism: See Affirmative Action for details.Edited by Nemesis Juggernaut, : typo

---

“I know where I am and who I am. I'm on the brink of disillusionment, on the eve of bitter sweet. I'm perpetually one step away from either collapse or rebirth. I am exactly where I need to be. Either way I go towards rebirth, for a total collapse often brings a rebirth." -Andrew Jaramillo

No it is not.
It is the wholly pragmatic response to the very practical need to avoid conflict whilst acknowledging the very real and inherent ideoogical nature of human beings.Each of us should be free to pursue and act upon our uniquely subjective and utterly inevitable ideologies and beliefs as long as they do not restrict the rights of others to do the same thing. I cannot think of a philosohy better founded in pragmatism!! The principle of consent is directly derived from the founding principle of not compromising the freedoms of others. See above. How could it possibly be otherwise? In theory there is no difference between practise and theory but in practise there is a great deal of difference between the two.I cannot personally see how polygamy can be practised without compromising the rights of individulas on the basis of ideology. But, as previously stated, I don't claim to be an expert on this subject and if this fear can be rationally and pragmatically demonstrated to be unfounded on my part then I have no objection in principle.Such is the nature of pragmatic, as opposed to ideological, belief systems.......Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.

Couldn't have said it better myself.

---

“I know where I am and who I am. I'm on the brink of disillusionment, on the eve of bitter sweet. I'm perpetually one step away from either collapse or rebirth. I am exactly where I need to be. Either way I go towards rebirth, for a total collapse often brings a rebirth." -Andrew Jaramillo

I repeat -No it is not.
It is the wholly pragmatic response to the very practical need to avoid conflict whilst acknowledging the very real and inherent ideogical nature of human beings.Each of us should be free to pursue and act upon our uniquely subjective and utterly inevitable ideologies and beliefs as long as they do not restrict the rights of others to do the same thing. I cannot think of a philosohy better founded in pragmatism!!On what basis do you define this as ideological rather than pragmatic?Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.

This seems consistent with my proposed Rule #1 from Message 44: ”HM

Yes but only if you define bigotry in your own terms and completely ignore all the arguments regarding restricting the personal freedoms of others that you have thus far comprehensively failed to refute.Whether or not the bigot defines bigotry such that he is either A) not a bigot or B) is no more a bigot than those who oppose his restrictive views, matters little.
The fact is that bigots seek to restrict the freedoms of others on ideological grounds.Your incessant game of word definitions is nothing but a substitute for a credible argument. No intelligent reader of this thread could see it as anything else.

Straggler, please be the judge and rule on this case of bigotry:Party A believes "marriage" is a civil union between only a man and a woman.Party B believes "marriage" should include same-sex civil unions.Party B calls Party A a "bigot" for holding such an opinion.Party A retaliates by calling Party B a bigot for calling Party A a bigot.Who's the bigot?(Maybe the sport of calling bigotry follows the rules of ping pong.)”HM

I don't see your claim of hypocrisy. Wow! Six steps! It's a complicated road to a simple destination: Let the gays have what they want; let them enjoy all the benefits they care to accrue from legalized domestic partnerships. And also let the straights have what they want; like them enjoy all the benefits they care to accrue by retaining the word "marriage" to describe their traditional civil unions.Claims of hypocrisy need not arise. Only genuine bigots could gripe about this.”HM