Is It Bigoted To Have A Supported Opinion?

We are talking same-sex marriage and we are talking about legally consenting adults.When a right enjoyed by all others is denied to classes of people based solely upon common human constituents like skin color, gender and sexual orientation then this is bigotry. It is not necessary to have malice in your heart or have a cross ready to burn on the front lawn. Such exclusions are bigotry prima facie.Part of the sinister nature of bigotry is that so many of its practitioners confuse their bigotry with simple differences in moral opinion. Denying common human rights to human beings is not some simple difference in moral opinion. It is destructive and anathema to the entire concept of Human Rights. And when it is done to an entire class of humans based upon some uncontrollable common human trait it is destructive and anathema to the entire concept of equal under law. It does not matter the reasons, the justifications, the platitudes. It is bigotry.Do people, churches, organizations have a right to express their differences in moral opinion? Yes, of course. The skinheads have every right to march through the streets with their swastikas. And the rest of us have every right to see their bigotry for what it is. Religions have every right to teach and hold their congregants to anti-gay traditional-marriage doctrines. And the rest of us have every right to see their bigotry for what it is.Is it bigoted to have a supported opinion?When that opinion seeks to deny common human rights ... Yes.

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!

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

Then so must be cunnilingus within a hetero relationship, yes?69 is an affront towards YHVH?

So your god wouldn't mind two gays engaging in mutual oral stimulation within marriage. So your god wouldn't object to two gays entering into a loving supportive relationship and your church will no longer deny any two adults the spiritual right to marry.You and your god seem to have come a long way since yesterday.Or is there still some other basis for objection?