Is It Bigoted To Have A Supported Opinion?

Then the outcast "Heteros" would be crying for different-sex marriages and we'd be having this same discussion.And should that happen let me be the first to come out of the closet and declare that I am one of them heteros and I want sex with girls. Stuff it all you bigots. I want pussy!

quote:

---

We need to be careful using that argument. When we change the word "gay" to "pedophilia" it doesn't become bigoted. We strongly discriminate against pedophiles and that is not a bigoted view, at least in most eyes.

---

I don't think that we do. Remember that Phat is ALREADY making similar insinuations. Simply making a better comparison - and more honestly - seems a decent response.The onus should not be on us to justify NOT discriminating. NOT discriminating should be the default. The onus should be on those who would discriminate to justify their discrimination, always.And THAT is one reason why Phat should openly state his argument. The fact that he doesn't is rather telling.

If you have opinions that are out of step with society's mores you stand the risk of being called a bigot. It's difficult to be counter-cultural and not be regarded as either a bigot or insane. (And, to be fair, both or either state is often the case.)I've been watching the change in peoples' attitudes to immigration in the UK for some time. Around 10 years ago multiculturalism was the belief system we were supposed to have - people who disagreed were called racists and bigots. (And many of them actually were.) Any discussion was closed down very quickly by that kind of intervention.Then a combination of high immigration, unemployment and a declining economy caused a shift towards protectionism and people began to question the sense of an open door immigration policy.Gradually, the climate changed until today it's perfectly acceptable to discuss immigration policy openly and indeed, only today the political climate has changed so much that a new party UKIP (UK Independence Party) whose main, and maybe only, policy is to get us out of Europe and stop immigration, has made sweeping gains in local elections.Where the charge of bigot is used to close down a conversation or debate, it's an assault on a right to hold an unpopular opinion and it's intellectually dishonest to use it in argument - generally people are only expressing their opinion of what they like and dislike. I think that's a perfectly fair thing to be able to say, with being verbally assaulted.Having said all that, Phat is obviously wrong headed in his opinion, but has a perfect right to give it without being accused of bigotry off-hand - it's too strong a word to be chucked around like that.

If I am honest as a Christian, I will eventually use the Bible to provide some support for my position...realizing of course that many of you don't view it as a viable source.I wont be using any scriptures from the Old Testament because the OT is all about laws given to Jewish people and such. Jesus basically came to fulfill the law rather than abolish it, but we are not under law now but under grace.Also, just to let you know, I am not here to act condescendingly to anyone. I am a human with a brain and a heart, among other things, and I am just like you. We all agree that some people like boys and some people like girls. This does not mean that we need to show partiality to boys over girls or to girls over boys. We choose whom we are attracted to in the Spirit. In the flesh, of course, this is not the case. Its all emotional hard-wiring.Its now 400 am, so I wont be able to frame this post just yet. I still need to read the responses that all of you sent me, and I want to listen to your hearts and minds before I speak mine.I love freedom of speech and I enjoy communicating with all of you, even if we sometimes strongly disagree with each other. I believe that humans can learn more oftentimes from disagreement over agreement.

I well understand and agree with your point that some terms, like bigotry are inappropriately used for their emotional impact. I cannot address the UK immigration debate but from what you relay that seems to be such a case. No one has a right to immigrate to the UK, or anywhere, so denying that option to all people outside cannot be called bigotry.The term does, however, have its meaning and appropriate uses in intellectual discourse that should not be tempered for fear of offense. If all other people in the world were accepted as immigrants but those classified as negro or moslem or Pakistani then there is no other term to describe this case but bigotry against those select classes. Denying rights and privileges common to all others, like marriage, to a class of people based upon some normal human characteristic, like sexual orientation, is another such case of bigotry against a selected class.There is no avoiding the term in this gay marriage debate. It is appropriate, correct and deserved. In this debate, if someone is offended by its usage towards them then this should be a clue that they should reexamine their opinion. If, after careful reconsideration, they still feel that this one class of people should be denied a common human right freely available to all others then they should accept the fact of their bigotry.Edited by AZPaul3, : order

Heh...it was sort of a tongue in cheek comment.Your comparison is not quite the same. Everyone is free to pursue a career in fire fighting and the most qualified will make the cut. This is not really the same as sexual orientation. If everyone was heterosexual then we carry on as usual where as if everyone was gay then we don't carry on as usual.One of the factors that I use to assess the acceptability of some given behaviour is whether or not everybody else could also behave the same way. Is that a flawed consideration?What does Pace Kant mean?

If everyone went to the lake and took their legally allotted amount of fish, there would probably be no more fish. Yet somehow, taking a legal amount of fish is perfectly acceptable.Why is it acceptable? Because it is unreasonable to think that everyone will show up and keep ALL the fish they can.Secondly, homosexuality is not a behavior. It is a natural state of being for some people. If everyone had downs syndrome, then the human population wouldn't do very well, either. Is having downs syndrome also unacceptable behavior?

For the sake of moving things on let's say that we are talking about consenting adult behaviour. Let's also add that we are talking about consenting adult behaviours which don't generally result in permanent or significant physical damage to any of the parties concerned.On what basis do you think we should restrict or condemn such behaviours? And can you give any non-sex related behaviours that you think should be classified as demanding action against?

I think that I can make out a couple of points about what the Bible says.First, the Bible doesn't single out homosexual behaviour out as a particularly terrible sin. Jesus isn't even quoted as having anything special to say about it. If your paying special attention to homosexuality then you ought to ask yourself why you're doing it.Second, shouldn't you be more focussed on your own behaviour (which has hardly been good in this thread or the preceding one) ? Shouldn't you get your own house in order first ?

Not true Phat, you never use the Bible as you admit in the second paragraph. What you do is take one verse out of context simply because it supports the position YOU want to hold.Your version of Christianity is not to use the Bible unless it supports your position and to ignore all the other parts.The Bible is large, complex, often incorrect, often contradictory collection of individual biases.And the Bible has NOTHING to do with who can marry. When it comes to marriage the Bible should be totally irrelevant.If someone should want to marry their car then fine, let them marry their car. Trust me, the car cannot care whether it is married or not.

I think that gets to the crux of the debate. Is it wrong to have an opinion like that?For example, is it wrong for an Indian man (dot not feather) to want his kids to marry indians? I don't see anything wrong with wanting to keep your race and culture strong. It becomes wrong when they act on those desires and, say, prohibit them from marrying an non-indian, or disown them when they do. But having the opinion? I don't think so. So polygamy is definitely in and polygamists have the exact same rights to marriage as homo- and hetero- sexuals, right? Are they really being included in this fight for equality?

But of course we would carry on as usual. Those critters that learned to have heterosexual sex would pass their genes on and the rest, as is the norm, would go extinct.It's been happening like that for years and years.

Hi Phat,You're OP was long enough that I might have lost track of where you were going, but if you're saying that you or your church have the right to comment on what is moral, then I'm with you.But if you're saying that you or your church have the right to advocate that your view of what is moral should cause certain rights to be conferred or withheld, then I'm not with you.Having said that, if you were arguing that murder is immoral and that we should withhold certain rights from murderers (i.e., put them in prison), then I'm with you, which contradicts what I just said.But if you were arguing that gay marriage is immoral and that we should withhold certain rights from gay partners (inheritance, medical access, etc.), then I'm not with you.So obviously my position on whether our moral judgments should affect which rights we confer or withhold is inconsistent, varying according to which moral judgment is under consideration.Gee, when I started this post I thought I might have something meaningful to contribute, now I'm not so sure.--Percy

That is what you need to show (and I do agree that they are interchangeable). The fallacy is equivocation.