On the Threshold of Bigotry

except gay marriage is a contradiction in terms. an oxymoron. heterosexuals get marriage, period. gay can have civil unions or whatever you want to call it.

If you agree that subjective regulations should be corrected to being objective regulations as much as possible... why are you arguing the opposite in relation to gay rights?

This is a circular argument.
If you define marriage as excluding homosexuals then obviously homosexuals are excluded forom getting married.The questions is why should this be the definition of marriage rather than one that incorporates gay couples?Marriage is a social and legal construct and it is up to us to define it. What rational non-idealogical reason is there to define marriage such that gay couples are excluded?Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.

Don't know why this is so difficult for some people to grasp. Could that difficulty be a measure of bigotry?”HM

If you are referring to gay marriage then the subjectivity is all yours. The objective meaning of marriage is a civil union between a man and a woman. Anything beyond that is a dandy ride into subjectivity, which could include multiple spouses, beloved pets, and dead aunts.In this regard, what you are saying is equivalent to Michael Vick demanding his civil rights to hold dog fights. It's a simple matter of the majority who hates dog fights against a minority who loves them.”HM

But we're not talking about the meanings of words. We're talking about objective regulations. The rest of your post is about the meanings of words... this is not the issue.Remember the first thing we talked about: Message 35
And you have since agreed that objective, rational regulations are better than subjective regulations.Please try again, and please try to focus on what we're talking about: Message 43
1. You agree that subjective regulations should be corrected.
2. The current regulation is that gays cannot marry, and 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 should marry.
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.This is the threshold of bigotry/hypocrosy/confusion that everyone is attempting to point out to you.Why do you say subjective regulations should be corrected except for this particular subjective regulation?Please explain the confusion.

The "objective meaning of marriage"........? What is objective about this definition? Who decides it is objective? On what basis do you claim this objectivity? If you are unable to rationalise this definition without reference to irrational ideology how can you claim it as objective? The irrational ideological restriction and exclusion with regards to the rights of others is bigotry.
The promotion of equality for all (in this particular case to marry the lover, sexual partner and mate of ones choosing) is, if anything, quite the opposite to bigotry. It promotes the rights of others rather than restricts themSeriously why do you care so much whether gays are able to get married or not?
I am of the opinion that equality of rights without prejudice is fundamental to the practical workings and success of a free and representative democratic society.
I don't understand the grounds on which you actually oppose gay marriage.You have never actually stated why (except elsewhere in fairly glib, half joking terms of innuendo).Seriously - Why? I can think of a number of different practical and rational reasons why I would object to communal or multiple spouse marriages, bestial marriages or necrophilic marriages. I am sure you can too.None of these however apply to gay couples as far as I can see.
Unless you can state a rational objection to any of the above that also applies to gay marriage then I don't really see the relevance of any of thee examples. Absolutely not. It is about the right (or lack of it) to inflict personal harm or restrictions on the freedoms and choices of others. In this particular case the law has seen fit to include animals as "others". Whether that is valid or not is a whole other discussion.DEMOCRACY
The idea that democracy is simply the right of the majority to inflict it's opinion on the minority by decree is a complete misapprehension of the entire concept. Democracy is about representation. It requires freedom of expression and personal liberty on principle to be incorporated for it to have any meaning at all. In a democracy all minorities must have the right to make their case and put forward their argument. Each individual must have the right to campaign for their point of view and to oppose laws that restrict their personal freedoms. A bare minimum of personal freedom that is guaranteed to be protected from the particular lawmakers of the day is also arguably an inherent requirement as well as a proces for checks and balances on the governing body of the day. A democracy that pushes through majority opinion by decree is a hollow shadow of any democracy worth having or defending. In my humble opinion.For this reason Larry the lawyer in your example is a fine example of someone exercising their democratic rights to push for greater personal freedoms.
Those who oppose Larry and seek to restrict the rights and personal freedoms of others purely on irrational ideological grounds are however undemocratic bigots.Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.

But what constitutes "irrational ideology" lies in the eye of the beholder too.Pub life in Irish rural society is Irish rural society. Or an essential element of it at any rate. Rational lawmaking has clamped down on drink driving to the point where you can't go to the pub anymore: a pint of beer would likely put you over the limit if the latest Euro levels of blood/alcohol are introduced - which they look like being.I don't see the introduction of such destructive laws (in terms of effect on rural society) as rational - even if I do recognise that they are ideology driven. Driven by an ideology that says we must conform to European Standards in this case.- Were it that you could get agreement on what constitutes irrationality! Empiricism is an irrational ideology yet it forms the basis of the thinking of so many here - posited as if the most rational thing in the world

Then it's funny how much there is of it about.Apparently gay people can perform logical impossibilities. How cool is that?

Bearing in mind that your section on Democracy focused on individual freedom rather than effects on the body society ...

quote:

---

Each individual must have the right to campaign for their point of view and to oppose laws that restrict their personal freedoms.

---

...could you give examples as to your objections?Edited by iano, : No reason given.

Marriage is a civil union between a man and a woman. That is an objective definition of "marriage." But you are insisting that this objective definition should be subjectively modified for the convenience of gays. Why them and not polygamists, pedophiles and animal lovers, too? You cannot objectively differentiate them from gays when it comes down to deciding who should get legally married. Your objectivity has been mysteriously displaced to the wrong end of the pole. What is objective to you is subjective to me. Maybe you need a strong dose of objectivity medication.”HM

I believe marriage is a civil union between a man and a woman. That's all I've got. Is that not enough for you? Is that bigotry? Why do you believe marriage is something else? Whose belief is better? All we have to go on here is the prevalence of opinion, the value of tradition, and the rules of democracy.Being called a bigot for believing that marriage is a heterosexual affair is what I would call a measure of bigotry. Man, you're standing in it up to your armpits!”HM

Absolutely. But not at the expense of compromising the individual freedoms of others.
I don't believe that it is my democratic right to blast a 130 decibel foghorn on the hour every hour in the middle of inner city London!! (a 747 taking off is about 100 decibels I think).
I believe that it is my democratic right to campaign to do so but the duty of the lawmakers is, in this case, to restrict my personal freedoms where they compromise the personal freedoms of others (e.g their freedom to sleep in their homes).
Where ones personal freedom compromises the freedoms of others there has to be a judgement. As I stated earlier this will be necessarily subjective and very probably contentious. Whose freedoms are being compromised and to what degree has to be weighed up. Weighed up rationally.However the principle that where my freedoms do not compromise the freedoms of others they should be upheld without compromise from ideology and irrationality remains intact. In the case of both necrophilia and bestiality there is the principle issue of consent. Marriage is a legal union of assets, responsibility etc. and as such should require the consent of all parties involved. To be married without consent is arguably a fundamental infringement of ones personal liberties and freedoms. Obviously animals and the dead are not capable of this consent. Even if we could somehow determine consent how could one half of such unions meet their legal responsibilities and requirements?In the case of polygamy my objections are more practical. How would it work? Who could marry who? Could one man marry the entire female population of a given city/town. Could one woman marry the entire male population? Would there be restrictions on numbers? If so what restrictions and on what basis? Could communes consisting of multiple members of both sexes be married? How would assets be split? How would responsibilities be split? How would parenthood and responsibility for children in particular be determined? Are individual rights actually being compromised by such a scenario?If all of these (and the numerous other practical considerations and difficulties that I have no doubt failed to foresee) could be rationally agreed upon by all the parties concerned such that laws common to all could be formed - Then I would have no objection to polygamists having such rights on principle. Other cultures allow polgamous marriages and have legal frameworks for this.I just cannot see how in practise one set of laws could be derived that would satisfy all polygomous situations whilst adhering to the principle of maintaining individual freedoms. Most polygamous cultures seem to be quite misoginistic (although I may be displaying my irrational prejudiced ignorance here )However simply opening up marriage to all couples regardless of sex would, if anything, make the law simpler as all current laws would apply. But without the irrational exceptions.Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.

You have the right to believe whatever you like. But without a reasoned rational basis for your belief your desired restriction on the rights of others amounts to irrational ideology. By the definitions I have laid out your irrational ideological beliefs, if actioned to restrict the freedoms of others do, I think, amount to a form of bigotry. Because laws should not be based on irrational ideology. Well I have a reasoned and rational answer whilst you have an irrational and ideological unjustifiable assertion......... No. We have someone (i.e. you) who wishes to restrict the freedoms of others based on irrational ideology on one side and someone who wishes to promote the personal liberties of others on the other side.
Only one of these positions is democratic in the widest sense of upholding concepts of personal freedom. Yet you have comprehensively failed to provide a reasoned argument for this view. A few beers and the BS flows all too freely. But no need to worry I am wearing a snorkel.Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.

The arguments on both sides are not irrational. Each side of the debate has a rationale for it's point of view even if the opposing side is unwilling to see that rationale.Neither side is saying "I believe...... I have no further justification and require no further justification" (as Hoot has just done regarding gay marriage)On one hand you have the personal freedoms of the pubgoers and the community spirit that this results in.On the other side you have the personal freedom of people to not be run over by drunk drivers. This is the freedom, whether rightly or wrongly in practise, that the lawmakers believe that they are trying to uphold.The balance between these needs to be found.
Personally I am with you on the balance being wrong if the proposed laws are introduced. But the proposals are not irrational. Just wrongly balanced (in both our views)Like I said where there is a balance between different freedoms there will always be subjectivity and contention.That is very different to cases where increasing the freedoms of some has no effect on the freedoms of others. If you want to start a new thread on this wider topic I will gladly participate..........?Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.