On the Threshold of Bigotry

No, it's not. The insurance companies can rely on the incorporation of spouses in a court of law from coast to coast and most of the world. They can not rely on domestic partnerships in neighboring jurisdictions.

---

KindlyEveryone deserves a neatly dug grave. It is the timing that's in dispute.‘—

I agree. And that is why we need to get the law out of the business of marriage. I don't care if churches decide to marry gays, because I don't have to join any church that does that. But I do care what the laws do, since they affect me whether I like it or not. My apoplexy notwithstanding, it is you who is insisting that "gay marriage" is that same thing as marriage between a man and a woman. Rrhain, unless you are illiterate and stupid, which you clearly are not, I am astonished that you can't recognize the difference. You can call your dog a cat if you want to, but he's still going to bark at strangers and slobber on the sofa. Yes, I do. I wonder if they know where the threshold of bigotry really is, since they are crossing it all the time by way of their accusations.”HM

---

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

So far you have provided arguments and/or definitions that conclude the followingA) Hitler was not a bigot
B) That any subjective viewpoint which gains the support of the majority suddenly becomes 'objective'.
C) That if 50.1% of the population vote to rape, pillage, enslave or kill of the other 49.9% of the popuation then this a fine example of the democratic process.Dude are these really your views? Seriously? Or has the fact that you are defending an irrational position resulted in you arguing for things that you would normally consider quite mental in the name of consistency? Bicycles and tricycles are physical objects that we label consistently for the aid of communication.
Marriage is a social construct that has legal and social implications in terms of rights and responsibilities for individuals.If you want to call bicycles tricycles it has no effect on anyones personal freedoms, rights or responsibilities. It does nothing but blur your own ability to communicate.
The same is not true of discluding certain couples from equality in the eys of the law as compared to other couples. For no rational reson (or at least none that you have yet expressed)One is an act of personal stupidity which you should be free to pursue.
The other is an act of imposing your irrational prejudice on others.

Irrelevant to the topic, because your take on "harm" is inherently subjective.If my next door neighbor wanted to raise beagles for barbecuing purposes, it would be illegal for him to that. Don't know why. Nobody is harmed, unless you count the beagles. He can raise pigs for barbecuing purposes, and that would be legal. So who's to say beagles are so damn special? The beagle bigots?”HM

---

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

Good post Grizz and I take your point re "democracy". I cannot however imagine many who would truly want to live in such a system which is why actual democracies do not rule by majority decree and why real systems of government have founding principles which are not subject to change simply by such decree.If the majority voted to eliminate democracy would that be the act of a democratic society..........?However I would say that your post is largely supportive of my wider point. Namely that not all points of view are equally reasonable or equally rational.In this thread one side is arguing for a philosophy that insists on irrational ideologies being imposed on all regardless of personal belief and is inherently unable to participate in a system of objective and independent arbitration and lawmaking with regard to individual freedoms.The other philosophy places no irrational restrictions on the beliefs or actions of others and is designed such that a system of independent arbitration is the best means to ensure the rights of all to pursue their personal ideological beliefs regardless of what those may be.Is not the function of congress, the constitution, parliament, freeedom of expresion, representative politics etc. etc. etc. to ensure that the irrational ideologies of the day are not able to trample all over such principles and ideals as objectivity and equality in the eyes of the law?

I just thought what Hoot said was witty... not to mention true.

---

“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

In this context it is not the term "harm" that is subjective. It is not the term harm that is subjective here but the term "others".
As I have said many times previously the term "others" in respect to 'harming or irrationally restricting the freedom of others' is going to require it's own rationale.Apparently the law considers beagles as "others" worthy of protection in this respect but not pigs.
Is there a rational or practical reason for this or is it just anti pig prejudice? That is the question.Hitler would not consider jews as "others" in this context. His reasons for doing so I would think are quite obviously subjective and irrational. Thus Hitler is an anti Jew bigot.I don't think we can compare pig farmers with Hitler as the logical extrapolation of your argument would require........

RAZD, your post makes me wonder if bigotry has a strong temporal component. We always judge it's actions in contemporary terms as if there really were universal values for defining it across time. But in the end, I suspect, bigotry will always be subjectively alledged for the convenience of contemporary living. I seem to recall that Bonnie and Clyde were treated rather badly for their group membership. (At least they were heterosexuals!) But, RAZD, the laws already apply equally to straights and gays: both are permitted to enter heterosexual marriages (a needless redundancy in terms, like "tooth dentist") without discrimination. What you and others are calling for is a change in the meaning of marriage, which I oppose. And for that I am called a bigot.Therefore, the threshold is subjective and impossible to resolve without a popular consesus. No?”HM

---

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

Prejudice is a two-way street, and it all depends on which side of the street you walk on.”HM

---

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

Rrhain, I do believe your have squared the circle.”HM

---

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

I don't oppose legalizing DPs for gays. And whatever the insurance companies do is a private matter with their subscribers.”HM

No.
Some positions are inherently less reasonable by any objective standard than others.In this thread one side is arguing for a philosophy that insists on irrational ideologies being imposed on all regardless of personal belief and is inherently unable to participate in a system of objective and independent arbitration and lawmaking with regard to individual freedoms.The other philosophy places no irrational restrictions on the beliefs or actions of others and is designed such that a system of independent and objective arbitration and lawmaking that does not discriminate between different groupings is the best means to ensure the rights of all (including bigots BTW) to pursue their personal ideological beliefs regardless of what those may be.Note: By 'objective' here I mean such that a decision can be made on rational grounds by those who are not part of the ideological dispute in question and who are thus neither pro nor anti the conflict in question.In short: A rational, reasoned and principled case can be made for one POV whilst you have hidden behind various definitions to mask your repeated and blatant failure to even attempt this for your own POV.Conclusion: Not all POvs are equal. Not all POVs are the result of prjudice.

Hi Straggler, always nice discussing.If, by objective, you mean setting out a set of principles or rules by which everything is judged, then this is exactly the aim of a Constitutional Democracy. Unfortunately, you can never lay out in completely unambiguous terms everything that will take into account all possible future disputes. At a future time, it is always possible some issue will present itself that will test the system and will therefore force one to interpret the aim and intent of such a blueprint.These are pretty complex issues. I have never studied Constitutional law so this is way beyond my scope. My own personal understanding of the Constitution tells me that it really is not about what individuals specifically can and cannot do - that is what local, state, and federal laws are for. The Constitution outlines, often in abstract terms, the specific rights and privileges afforded to various parties such as individuals and States. It is a blueprint.In the US, the Supreme Court is the final arbiter when it comes to determining whether or not an individual has had their rights infringed or if a law or charter has violated the intent of the Constitution. The problem here is obviously one of interpreting intent. Interpretation will always be subjective and, as we see, there will always be justices with differing opinions -- this cannot be escaped.In this thread, and many others, there are always a lot of folks arguing back and forth about bigotry, rights, and privileges, but nobody is really addressing the larger questions at the heart of these issues -- What is a fundamental human right? What are these rights? What is the source of these rights -- Reason, emotion, God?Everyone will have a different answer depending on their world view. How are these rights derived? Whose answers to these questions should be accepted as objective truth and why? Also, is not claiming that these rights are objective the same thing as stating that they must exist independently of human beings?Before these questions are addressed, I don't see how anyone can claim that their opinions are anything but subjective and personal -- I just see people throwing around words like 'Bigot.' Philosophers have been grappling with these questions for centuries and there never has been common agreement. That is why there have been, and continue to be, so many political and social justice systems.In Communist nations, the needs of the whole is objectively viewed as more important than individual rights. In Western Democracies, Individual rights are paramount and take precedence. This is all intertwined with our ideas of morality, ethics, and social justice.Now, if someone can show they have solved this problem that man has grappled with since his existence, and they can state they have objectively derived these absolute truths, there is a prestigious faculty position somewhere at Harvard or Cambridge awaiting you.

POM material.”HM

---

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

I agree entirely in practical terms but feel that the aim is a noble one. Understood. But do such founding documents/bodies etc. not necessarily limit the degree to which the goverment of the day, whether local, national or whatever can restrict the rights and freedoms of individuals and/or groupings within society? And I think the anti gay marriage brigade within this thread could provide better arguments for their POV if they were to assume some of these as the foundation for their argument. Rather than pointlessly obscuring the issue with numerous attempts at defining various words. No. Absolute rights 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.