On the Threshold of Bigotry

Well if we conveniently ignore any rationale for either view then obviously both views are equally ideological, equally irrational and equally bigotted.However given that the arguments in favour of gay marriage have been articulated in rational, reasoned and objective terms (by myself and others in this thread) whilst you have actually explicitly acknowledged that you have no more than ideological subjective irrational belief to fall back on with regard to your views on this subject............Well the conclusions are obvious!With regard to the whole gay marriage topic you are displaying all the debate formations of a creationist as witnessed countless times at EvC!!!
Namely -

If I define the terms of my argument such that I need no rationale beyone word definition then I win.

If I subjecively define the arguments of my opponents and then show these arguments to be false then I win.

If I ignore rationality and reason and base my arguments on subjectivity and my own "obvious" conclusions then I win.

If when repeatedly asked to backup my assertions with reasoned arguments I instead ridicule my opponents and their arguments with derogatory terms and facile comments then I win.

​

You have already stated that you have no rational argument with which to oppose gay marriage.
Unless you are going to claim that laws should be based on irrationality I really don't see where you are going in terms of the continuation of this debate........?

​

Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.

Straggler, it's so simple. I maintain that "marriage" is s a civil union only between opposite sexes. You maintain that it is not. Is your POV more rational than mine? If so, why?And please try to avoid the threshold of bigotry.”HM

You are actually making his case for him, even if unwittingly. You sum it up in the above sentence. We have freedom of speech, right? And even if we may personally disagree with someone else's view, they still reserve the right to their opinion.By calling someone a bigot, and ostracizing them on whichever one of their beliefs that happens to offend you, you in essence become that which you excoriated him for. In essence, you would be a bigot too since the very definition of the word is a person who is utterly intolerant of any differing creed, belief, or opinion.If you are utterly intolerant of any creed, belief, or opinion of a so-called bigot, you then effectively become one too. The only real difference between the two is the opinion, but the commonality is that they are both bigots -- of each other!So the truth is that we are all bigots to some degree, every last one of us, for the simple fact that me being utterly intolerant to white supremacism then makes me bigoted towards them.Somehow, though, (and this is what Hoot is addressing), some people think they have the title deed to what constitutes as bigotry and what does not, without ever realizing that they are bigots too.

---

“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

The thing that you are failing to apprecaite regards my position is that I do not dispute your right to have whatever opinion it is you choose. Or even to express these opinions. In fact I would defend your right to express your opinions no matter how much I might disagree with them. Including your anti gay marriage opinions.You can object to gay marriage. You can personally refuse to participate or directly facilitate the act of gay marriage. I have no problem with this at all. That is your right. However to actively seek to restrict the freedoms of others to undertake actions that in no way adversely affect your own freedoms is quite a different matter.The thing I am objecting to is the practical application of that irrational ideological opinion such that the freedoms of others are suppressed. Not just with respect to gay marriage but with respect to anything at all.We are all ideological and irrational creatures with opinions that will inevitably conflict.
My argument is that the only practical and rational response to this fact is to protect the rights of all equally to have their views by not allowing any one group to suppress the opinions, freedoms and rights of any other group on irrational grounds that do not in themsleves adversely affect the freedoms of anyone else.

Because my PoV is founded in rational principles regarding equality of freedom whilst yours is, as you have acknowledged founded on irrational ideology only. Anyway.......We are both getting clogged up and repeating ourselves now so lets try another line of thought. Consider the following.I object to the use of owl based avatars and user names.
I have no rational basis for this. I just do.
I think owl based avatars and user names should be banned from EvC.
Those who currently use such avatars and names will be able to change their user details and continue to use EvC. Just not with owl based avatars and names.
This rule would apply as much to me as it does to you.
I would also be banned from using owl based avatars and names so the ban is perefectly fair to all EvC users.Now lets says that I write to Percy and he agress.
You get suspended from EvC until you change your avatar and name.Is this fair?
Would you feel at all persecuted?
Now imagine this scenario in relation to something other than trivial and superficial user rights on a mere internet forum.
Imagine instead this scenario in relation to something that actually defines you as an individual or which you feel will make a practical difference to the quality of your life.How is your objection to gay marriage different, in principle, to the above irrational decree?Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.

Then I'll state it again, maybe next time I'll try bigger font? 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.

---

How can they not?You clearly state that you think subjective regulations should be corrected. Then you clearly state that you do not think this particular subjective regulation should be corrected.I'm not claiming that you are a hypocrit. I am asking you to clarify your claims because currently they appear hypocritical. I am showing you the confusion and asking for you to clarify.

quote:

---

You can object to gay marriage. You can personally refuse to participate or directly facilitate the act of gay marriage. I have no problem with this at all. That is your right. However to actively seek to restrict the freedoms of others to undertake actions that in no way adversely affect your own freedoms is quite a different matter.

---

What does legality have anything to do with bigotry? Whether you are seeking to restrict someone's freedoms because you hate homosexuals, or whether you just hate homosexuals, on the basis of their homosexuality, is all that qualifies. Conversely, to hate people that hate homosexuals is bigotry. It really is that simple. And that is all I'm really saying.I'm not advocating bigotry of any kind, I'm just pointing out that certain people don't seem to understand what bigotry really is because one special-interest group hijacked it and dutifully makes up arbitrary rules about it.

quote:

---

The thing I am objecting to is the practical application of that irrational ideological opinion such that the freedoms of others are suppressed.

---

But that is not the topic of discussion, and I doubt many people would contend with your position.

quote:

---

My argument is that the only practical and rational response to this fact is to protect the rights of all equally to have their views by not allowing any one group to suppress the opinions, freedoms and rights of any other group on irrational grounds that do not in themsleves adversely affect the freedoms of anyone else.

---

But they aren't viewed the same. Lets go back twenty five years in time. Lets say that on a talk show they brought out a homosexual and a heterosexual. The homosexual claims that his feelings and behavior are natural, and he should be able to do whatever he wants with whatever other gay man he desires. The crowd boo's in dismay. The heterosexual says that homosexuality is indicative of a sexual disorder, and that the homosexual man needs psychological counseling. The crowd cheers in approval.Fast forward twenty five years in time to 2008. Same topic, similar guests. Now the reverse is true. The crowd cheers on the homosexual and excoriates the heterosexual. The heterosexual that takes issue with homosexuality is now branded as a bigot.The point is that society seems to dictate what constitutes bigotry when it isn't true at all. To be utterly intolerant of an opinion constitutes bigotry. In my mind, that is not necessarily a bad thing. To prove it to you, you are bigoted against homophobes. You don't like the message of homophobes, and you speak out against their assertions. Yet, since the term "bigot" is unmistakably used in a negative context, you would never consider yourself a bigot. In you mind, the homophobe is the bigot, not you, when in reality both of you are.The moral of the story is that people don't even really know what bigotry actually is, or if they do, they aren't aware that they too are bigots by definition. That's alls I'm sayin'. Does that make sense?

---

“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

It's your play on "subjective regulations" that runs afoul. But it is understandable. By such a designation you are subjectively differentiating some regulations from others on the ground of subjectivity. (Murders often subjectively disagree with the death penalty, you know.) Maybe it's fair to say that all regulations are subjective in the sense that they attempt to discriminate right from wrong, as decided by a whole lot of subjective people who vote one way or another in a democracy.Even tradition itself is subjective. But we try hard to be objective about it. We don't need to explain over and over again why "marriage" is meant be be a civil union between a man and a woman, anymore than we need to explain over and over again why there needs to be men's rooms and ladies' rooms. What would be subjective beyond the threshold of bigotry is for some people to demand unisex restrooms because of their belief that segregated restrooms is somehow an affront to them.So, on this landscape of subjectivity, we must decide who is right or wrong and who is or is not a bigot. And we must do it as objectively as possible. In this regard, I suppose, we are forever trying to make silk purses out of sows' ears.”HM

---

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

For the love of god, NJ, this has been explained to you repeatedly...over and over again...time after time...yet you keep ignoring what we have so patiently explained to you and keep saying the same stupid thing repeatedly...over and over again...time after time?Bigotry is not based on disagreeing with someones opinion. It is not based on ones Freedom of Speech. Disagreeing with someones opinion is not bigotry, nor is it intolerance. You know this though, as it has been explained to you so many fucking times that for you to bring it up your rather weak argument yet again shows that either you do not read what others post, or you purposefully ignore what is written just so you can attempt to "score" some points for your side.

Flies... Just read the dictionary, and then tell me I'm somehow wrong. Your understanding of a word, which is completely based on societal influence, does NOT usurp the actual definition of a word.At the least, you tell me what bigotry is. What is the definition?Edited by Nemesis Juggernaut, : Edit to add

---

“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

Sorry for butting in here. If I were to reply to this I would say:

quote:

---

Bigotry is not based on disagreeing with someones opinion. It is not based on ones Freedom of Speech. Disagreeing with someones opinion is not bigotry, nor is it intolerance. You know this though, as it has been explained to you so many fucking times that for you to bring it up your rather weak argument yet again shows that either you do not read what others post, or you purposefully ignore what is written just so you can attempt to "score" some points for your side.

---

”HM

---

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

In the terms you have defined I would defend your right to be a bigot.
But I would oppose your ability to inflict your bigoted opionions on others such that it restricts their freedoms in any way (as long as their freedoms do not in turn adversely affect your own).This principle has a wholly rational basis and is timeless. Whether or not the attitudes of society conform to this view now or at any point in the past is immaterial to my argument.However the words 'bigot' or 'marriage' or whatever are defined the argument remains solid.

But I don't make any sort of 'play' at all.I'm not calling the regulation subjective. You are making it so. By being unable to come up with any objective, rational reason why the regulation should be in place... it is subjective.Your own failure to produce an objective, rational defense of this regulation is what makes it subjective. It has nothing at all to do with me.Here's your chance again, here's the regulation: Message 62

quote:

---

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.

---

I am not defining it as subjective. It's subjective because you are unable to show that it is objective. You can change that. All you need is a rational, reasonable, objective reason why this regulation should be in place.Personally, I'm not sure how you can rationally defend unequal rights for certain people in a place that promotes "...liberty and justice for all". But perhaps you know of something that I do not.You claim subjective regulations should be corrected.
When confronted with a regulation that is subjective, you are unable to show how it actually is objective, and you also demand that this subjective regulation should not be corrected.Please explain your apparent hypocrisy.

You are conflating two different things. If a white man walked up to a black man, called him a nigger, and punched him in the face. You would say, "What a bigot!" and rightfully so. If the white man walked up to the black man and called him a nigger, then walked away, you would still call him a bigot. Why? Because there is no legal basis for it. Restricting freedoms has absolutely nothing to do with it.In fact, a few people on this forum have called me a bigot for my views on homosexual marriage. I have not restricted anyone one iota. If that is the case, what makes me a bigot if your own qualifier would not include me?So if my definition, that arrives from the dictionary of the English language, is not the real definition of what a bigot is, then what in the hell is a bigot?Edited by Nemesis Juggernaut, : edit to add

---

“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

You become a bigot when you ACT (or want to act) to deny someone something that you yourself are not denied. If disagreeing with someone is all it took to be a bigot, then as you state, everyone would be a bigot..and then of what value is the word? It becomes meaningless. It takes some sort of additional "action(s)" to move from disagreement into bigotry.For example...disagreeing with homosexual marriage does not make you a bigot. Wanting to deny someone the right to marriage because they are homosexual does make you a bigot.Thinking that homosexual marriage is wrong does not make you intolerant. Wanting to prevent two consenting adults from getting married just because they both happen to be male, makes you intolerant.Now do you see?But again...this has been explained probably at least ten times just by me alone...never mind how many additional times that others (especially Rrhain) have explained this to you, and Hoot Mon, and Artemis Entreri, and Catholic Scientist. And every time a thread like this comes up...you guys conveniently forget...over and over and over again...what bigotry means.