On the Threshold of Bigotry

As an initial comment to throw into the mix I would say denying the rights of individuals on idealogical grounds and forcing others to conform to your personal viewpoint in practical terms defines uncceptability and bigotry in the two examples you give. If pharmacist Phil fundamentally disagrees with abortion and the morning after pill I don't see how forcing him to sell it helps anyone. I fundamentally disagree with his view and think measures should be taken to ensure that women have access to such medical facilities (without relying on the whims of religious pharmacists). However forcing fundamentalist Christians to actively participate in 'selling abortion' is not going to do anyone any good. If Phil just happened to be a pharmacist who has these views and finds himself in this situation then I don't think Phil is a bigot. Wrong in my mind. But entitled to his opinion.
If Phil set out to become a pharmacist such that he could foist his anti-abortion views on others and intentionally deny them their legal rights then that is a different matter. Then he is behaving like a bigot.
However forcing Phil to sell the morning after pill I would also deem to be unacceptable as it overrides his personal choices in this matter. This could arguably be considered as an act of 'bigotry' against Phil and his fundamentalist views I suppose. The right to marry ones lover and sexual partner is a right that heterosexual couples have. To deny this to others of homosexual orientation on idealogical grounds seems, to me, to be an obvious act of bigotry.Unlike Phil, no active participation in that which is being proposed is required of those that disagree with gay marriage.
Larry is not forcing anyone who disagrees with gay marriage to actively facilitate it in any practical sense. Thus I don't see how he can be accused of bigotry.In my mind it is all about equal rights to make individual personal choices.Phil - Should not be able to force his anti abortion views on the actions of others. Nor should he have his actions decided by the pro-abortion views of others.Larry - Is fighting for the rights of gays to have the same freedoms as heterosexuals in terms of legally bonding with their partners. He is not fighting to reduce the rights of heterosexuals or foist his views into the personal choices of heterosexuals as to how they behave.

And yet if he is forced to do something against his strongly held beliefs (i.e. sell the morning after pill in this case) the he is being personally oppressed himself.
I would not force a Jewish butcher to sell pork!!By personally sticking to his beliefs he is not oppressing anyone as long as he does not directly interfere with the ability of others to fulfill their personal choices in ways that do not directly affect his personal choices. Marriage is a social construct and as such it is whatever we define it to be. Who defines marriage?
The very act of defining marriage such that it excludes gay couples is borne of irrational ideology and in itself the result of bigotry.How else would you describe such a definition of marriage? Yes. The one who defines marriage such that it excludes on irrational ideological grounds should be termed the bigot.Bigotry and prejudice, in this context, are about restricting peoples personal choices based on irrational, ideological criteria.
The advocates of gay marriage in no way seek to restrict the personal choices or actions of heterosexual couples and thus cannot be the bigots in this particular scenario.Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.

I disagree. It is not simply a matter of disparity and intolerance. Sometimes intolerance is justified with regard to certain views.
And by that I do not just mean views that I happen to disagree with!!Not all views are equal and not all intolerances are equally foundless. There are higher principles on which such matters can be decided.RESTRICTION
Views that attempt to restrict the personal choices of others are not the same as views that attempt to promote the rights of others. POVs that force others to directly behave in ways that are based on ideologies that are not their own are, in my view, inherently wrong. No matter how disparate in view or intolerant of the opposition a promoter of personal rights may be I don't think they can ever be considered bigoted in the same way that a restricter of personal freedoms can be.Restriction of the behaviour and rights of others is the hallmark of the sort of bigotry examples we are discussing.EXAMPLE
I don't think a gay couple who passionately advocate gay marriage rights and are intolerant of those who oppose them are 'bigoted'. They may have disparate views to their opponents. They may be intolerant of their anti-gay opponents and their views. However they do not seek to restrict the personal freedoms or activities of their opponents or anyone else. They only seek to enhance their own personal freedoms at no expense to the personal freedoms of their opponents.However the anti-gay marriage lobby seek to impose their ideology on others by restricting the personal freedoms and activities of others. Their own personal freedoms remain unchanged. These are, to my mind, bigots.Gay marriage is just one example. I think that the principle of non-interference with the personal freedoms of others that have no direct adverse affect on your own personal freedoms should be the foundation of freedom. Even for those with views that I would potentially disagree with........What right have I, or you, to impose our ideologies on others? What right have others to impose their ideologies on us?

Whatever our differences you are obviously not an idiot. As such this comment is beneath you.Ommitting ideology from law making whilst promoting rationality, reason and pragmatism as the basis for the rule of law is obviously not advocating anarchy.Do you really think that ideology rather than rationality, reason and pragamatism should be the basis of law?
I doubt it.Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.

On what rational grounds, as opposed to ideological grounds, should homosexual couples be denied the same legal rights as heterosexual couples?
Are there rationalgrounds on which to deny polygamists the same rights as couples?
These are the questions to ask.
What are your answers? I don't think asking the question alone makes you a bigot. Not accepting an answer to this question that you do not like on ideological grounds would however make you a bigot. A definition very convenient to your argument.
However a definition of the term 'bigot' that ignores the practical aspects of inflicting irrational restrictions on the freedoms and actions of others seems to be somewhat lacking in practical terms. No?Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.

Oh I don't doubt that. But the processes of free speech, democracy and representation are such that reasoned and rational arguments of a pragmatic nature are required in order to pass laws whatever individual governments may believe to be true.Simply asserting that a particualr law is necessary by decree on the basis that the government of the day believes it to be so on irrational ideological grounds is not enough in itself in any free democracy I am aware of.True - Succeesive governments pass ideological laws whilst paying only lip service to rational, reasoned and pragmatic argument. But the fact that they do pay lip service at least shows that they ackowledge that this should be the basis of law making.Do you disagree that rational, reasoned and pragmatic laws should be the basis of the rule of law and that ideological irrational laws are inherently indefensible?

The right to marry a lover, sexual partner and potential lifetime mate is irrefutably denied. I think that there are potentially rational and pragmatic reasons why polygamists should not enjoy the same legal rights as couples.However I have yet to hear a rational reason why a gay couple should not enjoy the same rights as a heterosexual couple. Subjective?
How is a definition of bigotry that includes promoting practical restrictions on the personal freedoms of others (as long as those freedoms do not in turn restrict the personal freedoms of a different grouping) subjective?If you tell me that I cannot do action X. But action X can be demonstrated to have no personal effect on you or anyone else who does not wish it to do so. Then how can your imposed restriction of my right to do action X be objectively or rationally justified?This is the basis of my argument. How is any of this generic argument subjective? Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.

What ideology is prevailing in the example below?Straggler writes If we agree that laws should be based upon rationality, reason and pragmatism in principle then I do not see how you can disagree with the above.
If you believe that laws should be borne of ideology then we have a very different debate.Which is your position?

I utterly agree.
I did not say that devising laws on the basis of reason and rationality was easy or uncontentious. Just that it should be the aim over irrational ideology.Deciding who is or is not negatively impacted is obviously highly individual and highly subjective to each potential law.However the founding principle of excluding irrational ideology is not.Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.

Michael Vick is in prison for abusing animals. His "action X" had a very obvious negative "personal" effect on the animals in question.Whether or not you think the rights and freedoms of animals should be included in law is a subject totally tangential to this thread. Currently laws do protect the rights of animals to some degree at least. As such Michael Vick has been convicted on the basis of his actions having a very harmful personal effect on these animals.However unless you are comparing homosexuals to dogs (which I don't think that you are) then the example is completely irrelevant to the subject at hand. Namely gay marriage rights.

Fair point. My cohorts......?
My argument against differentiating between gay and homosexual couples right to marriage is based on the definition of bigotry as the desire to restrict the rights of certain groupings on irrational ideological grounds.You have yet to really tackle that argument.Do you think laws should be based on irrational ideology or rational reason and pragmatism? If the latter on what rational basis (that does not also apply to heterosexual couples) can you justify your gay marriage objections? Larry lawyer is not attempting to restrict the personal freedoms of anyone else. Nobody who does not themselves want to have a gay marriage will be affected by Larry's actions.Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.

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.

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.

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.