On the Threshold of Bigotry

I agree. Grizz's post is the best articulated and most comprehensively argued counter argument to those that you have been opposing with various definition based arguments.I will be very interested to see how he responds to my subsequent post and would also be interested to see his take on the subject at hand (i.e. how do the arguemnts for and against gay marriage sit in terms of prejudice)I repeat my response to Grizz here for completeness -No. Absolute rights (i.e. those that exist independently of human beings - I think no such things exist) are not the same as 'objectively' derived rights.
Now this is the crux of the issue in this topic. What is "objective"?
If your POV and the 'reasons' for it are not expressable in terms that make any sense to those who do not share your ideology how can it be 'objective'. How can such a POV subject itself to genuinely objective or independent arbitration or law making by those who do not share the ideology in question?
Those POV which are based on rationality and reason can at least be debated by an 'objective' and 'independent' law making body. In principle at least.
Those that are based on ideological assertion cannot. Not even in principle.I would argue that rational arguments have a superior degree of objectivity as compared to purely ideological POV because of this fact.
But whether we call it objectivity or not the two positions are indisputably different in terms of their practical ability to be part of a system that incorporates arbitration and law making by bodies with no single ideological allegiance.

For those wondering about my argument, this pretty much sums it up in a sentence.Bigotry has an unmistakable negative connotation attached to it. And while we all feel justified in calling someone else a bigot, usually to denigrate them, the reality is we are all a little suspect.To imply bigotry for someone is to imply something negative about them. But if everything is subjective, then one man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter.In my mind there is something worse than being a bigot. Calling someone a bigot while they themselves are bigots seems worse in my mind. But, hey, maybe that's my own bigoted thinking manifesting itself.I'm not suggesting that any of us strive for bigotry, but perhaps we shouldn't assume that it is always a bad thing. Those of us who are bigoted towards rapists are quite happy being utterly intolerant to it -- I know I am.

---

“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

Intolerance to rapists is not irrational or unreasoned.
It is the irrational or unreasoned differentiation and grouping of people that makes someone a 'bigot'.
If bigotry = any intolerance the word bigoted and the word intolerant have no difference in meaning.

Who or what arbitrates irrational or unreasoned intolerance?

---

“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

As discussed with Grizz above, with Iano earlier and with Hoot and yourself to a lesser extent throught this thread - The ability for an independent and objective law making body that has no ideological allegiance to either side in a dispute, to weigh up the arguments and make a decision requires that opposing arguments be rational and reasoned.Intolerances of the form - "It is wrong because my faith decalres it to be so" are an example of irrational arguments that it is impossible to incorporate into any objectively derived form of law or independent form of arbitration.If you would give us a rational reason for differentiating between gay and heterosexual couples in the eyes of the law we could actually discuss a specific example.............Hoot has already declared his reasons to be essentially irrational ("it's just what I believe, is that not enough"). I am unaware of you giving any actual reasons for your position beyond word definitions in this thread as yet?

This argument is still just as bogus, blind and based on bigotry as it was the first time I heard it.Person {Z} is permitted to marry people from one group but not to marry people from another group ... so how is this not discrimination based on bigotry?By contrast you can live with any consenting adult of your choice with no legal restrictions, so that is not the issue. Likewise you can have sex with any consenting adult of your choice with no legal restrictions, so that is not the issue. You can also raise children as a single parent with no legal restrictions, so that is not the issue.The issue is that some arrangements confer an arbitrary legal advantage over others - how are these arbitrary legal advantages not discrimination when they don't apply to everyone equally? It's restricting privileges from some people that others are allowed to enjoy.Personally I think that all laws that give any kind of advantage to married people should be declared null and void, as they discriminate against single people, people who are just as likely to be peaceful citizens minding their own business and not harming any other citizens as anyone else.Can you marry yourself to get those privileges? Another bogus argument, they were treated as criminals because they - individually - actually were criminals. There were not "wanted" posters for all people named Bonnie or Clyde. No, what you are against is sharing the arbitrary legal advantages that you enjoy with everyone, and for that you are behaving like a bigot.It's like the southerner proudly proclaiming that he is not biased, he "loves black people, loves them to death, he just doesn't want them living in his neighborhood." People are blind to their own bigotry - because if they weren't they would know that it was wrong. No, it is pretty easy to determine that you want to exclude people from your group, it's pretty easy to determine that people who want to treat one group differently from another group are practicing bigotry. There is nothing subjective about drawing lines between people.If you had two new neighbors, and you could not tell which sex either one was, how would you - personally - know whether they could or could not get married? What criteria would you use?If you had two new neighbors, and both appear to be the same sex, but one was secretly a transvestite, how would you - personally - know whether they could or could not get married? What criteria would you use?A man and a woman that never have sex can get married, so it has nothing to do with sex, yet a man and a man that never have sex can't get married - why is that?There are also people that get married purely for the legal advantages, with no intention of doing anything more. Doesn't this tell you that what is "at stake" is not some mythical magical morality, but discrimination and bigotry based on class?Enjoy.Edited by RAZD, : finEdited by RAZD, : added

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAAmericanOZen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.

---

• • • Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click) • • •

Then we are in agreement, at least with this bit. But you are making up arbitrary rules as you go along. You may have very real reasons for why you feel you have the title rights to claim what is or isn't bigotry, but at the end of the day the dictionary is going to reign supreme. Many, many words have been hijacked over time, some intentionally, some unwittingly. Bigotry just may be one of those words where it started out being used correctly, and after a million one sound bytes, has been affixed with a specific ideology. First of all, I don't see why gay marriage is being specified when there are all kinds of forms of bigotry. Second of all, I have chosen to remain silent about homosexuals from here on out because I offended too many people. Unfortunately you are going to have to find another patsy. I made my position clear. Bigotry, in many ways, is just another name for bias. At least that's how it often inevitably works out in practical discourse. A bigot is a person who is utterly intolerant of ANY differing creed, belief, or opinion. If you hate all Muslims for the sake of their being Muslim, then you're a bigot. If you hate all Malaysian people because they're Malaysian, then you're a bigot. If you hate all homosexuals because they're homosexuals, then you're a bigot. If you hate all Christians because they're Christians, then you're a bigot.Seems pretty straightforward to me. But if someone simply questions a paradigm, they are quickly labeled a bigot falsely, as being a bigot is unyielding and uncompromising in any fashion. It's like the term "homophobe." Not only does the word make no sense in conjunction with the prefix and the suffix, but it is also slung around rather carelessly by those who would slander someone who seems even slightly in opposition to their view.Does this help clarify at all?In a quick summary I believe most people don't even understand what a bigot is. They understand it loosely, and use the word recklessly. And their use of the word often indicates their own bias, their own prejudices, and their own... bigotry. Edited 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

Don't know why this one is so hard to get across. As I have said before, over and over again, I'm willing to share the arbitrary legal advantages with everyone. I'm willing to grant gays legal DP or civil-union status. What I am such a dirty rotten bigot for is insisting that "marriage" is a civil union only between a man and a woman. Let the gays get their DPs and have all the legal frosting on their civil-union cake. I'll go for that. But I guess it is "bogus, blind and based on bigotry" to ask them to come up with their own term, like "garriage" or "fairriage" or something that fits their special situation.That's all I have on my protest flag against "gay marriage," which still seems to me to be an oxymoron.”HM

---

If you got some quince, Pussycat, I got a runcible spoon.

And I'm rather proud to be bigoted against suicide bombers.”HM

---

If you got some quince, Pussycat, I got a runcible spoon.

Hi,Yes, and that is why it is possible to amend the articles of the Constitution to keep up with times. There are no complete systems and there is always a need for change. But are not all rational arguments for human rights based on a subjective ideology, and are not all conclusions based on the use of reason once these axioms have been established?Rational arguments must include the use of axioms to form a conclusion. You must start with some premise or assertion in order to get from A to B. Any result of reason must rely on some set of axiomatic principles that are accepted a-priori and used as the basis to objectively form the conclusions -- in this case, conclusions about human rights and how a society should be governed. The larger question I was asking is, whose a-priori axioms should be used to objectively derive these rights in a rational way?Our capacity to experience emotions such as empathy, sadness, joy etc is the foundation for all of our notions of rights. Reason is the tool used to judge and weigh options that will achieve a desired result, but the desire itself has nothing whatsoever to do with reason..............................................Take the following two positions:A) "I believe all individuals should possess the same rights and privileges."B) "I believe all individuals should not necessarily possess the same rights and privileges."Neither of these positions are rational in that a conclusion follows from a premise. How could one possibly rationally derive these statements in an objective fashion using reason alone without appealing to the subjective and ideological side of human existence and experience? These are axiomatic assertions that have been born from personal experiences, not reason.There will be people who subscribe to view A and those who subscribe to the view B. How can one rationally conclude that A should be accepted over B without also relying on a deeper fundamental axiom that is itself of the same axiomatic and ideological nature?This is not a cynical view on my part, nor is it a challenge to any particular view. I am just pointing out that at times we can have a misplaced view of reason when it comes to human affairs. We are not creatures of reason, we never have been and never will be. We are creatures of instinct, emotion, and impulse who have the capacity to use reason as a tool to achieve a desired result. Before we can use reason as a tool, we must first have a result in mind, and in many cases, this result is not born from reason.If your view is A then you can rationally arrive at laws and regulations concerning human rights, but one cannot ever rationally derive A or B without relying on some subjective set of ideals.Ultimately, our views will always be based on a subjective foundation that includes an ideological view of human experience. It is this fundamental ideological level that is the arena on which the public debate plays out, with each camp claiming the moral high ground. Edited by Grizz, : No reason given.

Wasn't God bigoted against Job? Wasn't Moses bigoted against the Egyptians? Wasn't Jesus bigoted against the money chargers in the temple? Wasn't Abraham Lincoln bigoted against the South? Wasn't Martin Luther King, Jr. bigoted against the KKK? Wasn't Babe Ruth bigoted against the Boston Red Sox? Wasn't Bill Clinton bigoted against those who oppose BJs from interns in the hall leading from the Oval Office?”HM

---

If you got some quince, Pussycat, I got a runcible spoon.

What you want, when we clear away all the shinola, bruhaha and bogus arguments is to be able, at the end of the day, to say to gays "I'm married and you're not" = "I'm special and you're not" ...Curious that you didn't address the two hypothetical cases eh? Hard to be intolerant when you can't tell who is who.Enjoy.

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAAmericanOZen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.

---

• • • Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click) • • •

Yes, we are all judgmental creatures, whether we admit to it or not. And the calling of bigotry on such judgmental grounds can't be anything but a measure of the caller's own bigotry.”HM

---

If you got some quince, Pussycat, I got a runcible spoon.

This captures my whole point: the assignment of bigotry is entirely subjective, especially when it comes down to "gay marriage," which itself is not only subjective but an oxymoron to boot. However, RAZD, this statement of yours posted above could make you a mega-bigot!”HM

---

If you got some quince, Pussycat, I got a runcible spoon.

What we can do, based on extensive testing, is assume that between any two individual, one will likely have better aptitude and a certain task,What we cannot do is assume that they will always have a better aptitude on all tasks.What we cannot do is assume that the superior aptitude at any single task can be predicted based on non-related phenomena.A choice between individuals based on a true tested difference in aptitude is not bigotry, but an assumed difference based on non-related phenomena (and that is not verified) is.Enjoy.

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAAmericanOZen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.

---

• • • Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click) • • •