Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
3 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,821 Year: 3,078/9,624 Month: 923/1,588 Week: 106/223 Day: 4/13 Hour: 0/2


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Is It Bigoted To Have A Supported Opinion?
Phat
Member
Posts: 18262
From: Denver,Colorado USA
Joined: 12-30-2003
Member Rating: 1.1


Message 1 of 175 (698005)
05-02-2013 12:59 PM


Placing myself in the center of controversy in the Radical Clerics, Christian Morals, and Homosexuality thread, I began framing an argument in which I essentially attempted to portray my personal view on societal customs,equal rights arguments, and in so doing bringing up the ironic hatred that supporters of gay rights have against at least some chapters of Club Christian.
I pointed out that I was in no way against the legal right of gays to marry nor did I see gayness, as defined by inborn attraction to ones own gender, evil or wrong. In this thread I want to clarify my stance and again bring up the Macklemore article, which hooah valiantly defends by linking us to the song .:
hooah212002 writes:
It would behoove you to go listen to the song the article is talking about. I am unable to even see the article you are talking about, but given that it's about homosexuality and Macklemore, I guarantee it is talking about his amazing song Same Love:
It would do you well to hear and be exposed to a positive message for once instead of the vile bullshit you continue to spew.
(I maintain that my argument is not bigoted and is sound and would appreciate discussing this topic further in this new thread.)
In essence, I began by referring to this article, which I recommend everyone read.
Macklemore, Same-SexMarriage, & Human Equality
In the article, the author lays out what apparently is unpopular reasoning.
Neal Patel writes:
Macklemore articulates the unfortunate choice presented to us by our present cultural dialogue:support same-sex marriage or be found guilty of hatred and bigotry. The fact that the dialogue is framed in this way is a glorious success for supporters. This unsavory choice is also reflected in the terminology now used. What used to be called gay marriage or same-sex marriage is now often referred to as marriage equality
This lexical maneuver is brilliant because it forces those who oppose same-sex marriage to say that they are against equality. Everybody knows that nobody but the ignorant and the bigoted are opposed to equality. I don’t really fault the supporters for shaping the dialogue in this way, since they are utterly convinced that this is essentially a civil rights issue—the modern-day equivalent of the anti-slavery and anti-segregation movements.
Patel was correct, for that was the essence of the rants directed against me as the argument picked up steam. The basic rant was not that I supported the right of gays to marry...it was the sheer audacity of my even questioning another persons choice of morality.
The opposition to me daring to have a stance on morality was evidenced through the comments I received.
Panda writes:
Every bigot has an ideological reason for their bigotry.
jar writes:
In the case of opposition to same sex marriage the bigotry is based on an ideology; their version of Club Christian.
Keep in mind, now...that I had already stated that my personal rant was not in opposition to same sex marriage as a right. My opposition, which is directed at the church and not at secular society, was that we need to have a dialogue on our choices of morality and in setting an example for society to follow. The discussion should focus on what human behavior should be if in fact consensus is desired...a culture divided against itself is weak. My purpose for opening this topic was and is to initiate dialogue in these areas.
PaulK writes:
So long as the opposition to gay marriage fails to offer reasonable objections, how can we conclude that their position is based on anything more than bigotry?
Websters Online writes:
Bigot-a person who is obstinately or intolerantly devoted to his or her own opinions and prejudices; especially one who regards or treats the members of a group (as a racial or ethnic group) with hatred and intolerance
bigoted adjective
bigotedly adverb
Thus, my beliefs are by definition my opinions and prejudices and involve hatred and intolerance. But does intolerance in and of itself qualify as bigoted? If so, I receive it back.
No Nukes writes:
How $%%$ kind of you.(...)Because it is that denial of rights, and not your approval or disapproval that is important. Gay marriage isn't something you have to agree with or to compromise about. It's something for you to butt out of.
In other words, if I don't agree with you, I should shut up.
Patel shows that this is the way society will respond.
He quotes the Declaration Of Independence:
quote:
We hold these Truths to be self-evident, that all Men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life,Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness.
Theodoric writes:
Your self-righteousness is getting old and is very off putting. Actually it is insulting. (...)I realize you, and other Christians like you, are not morally superior to the rest of us, don't you?
I realize that I am no better than anyone...that we are all imperfect and that we are idolators.(yes, its my belief that God is superior to all of us, loves all of us, and desires that we love Him only because that is the best thing for any of us to do. When you hate what I stand for...in my opinion you hate Jesus. Now...lets talk idolatry, shall we?
Neal Patel writes:
This raises the question we all must answer, which is, What constitutes an unalienable human right? Another way to phrase the question is, Who decides what the unalienable rights of every human being are? Or in the more accessible parlance of a third grader, Who says?
Perhaps the best way to illustrate the importance of this question is to push the argument to its absurd boundaries. For example, what if someone asserted that it is an unalienable human right for a man to marry all the objects of his love: three different women, another man, his own daughter, his dog, and his cherished 1969 Chevrolet Camaro SS?Of course it is an absurd scenario. But why is it absurd? Who says?
At the time i read the article, I laughed at the supposed absurdity of a guy marrying his dog or his car. Then I saw this video:
and I was floored! Patel had a point, however...can we argue with his point? should nobody ever have a say as to what others do?
Finally...rounding out my topic, I'll share this article:
6 New Kinds of Anxiety the Internet Gave Us
quote:
I can't imagine what a boon the Internet was for the weird fetish community -- how did these people even find each other before? It must have been like a glorious breath of fresh air to realize there were tens of thousands of other like-minded folk out there, enjoying the same weird boner.
Getting back to Patels question as to "who says" what is socially acceptable, I challenge anyone to tell me that everyone should butt out of any and all human desires and let humans do whatever they want. My argument is that it is my churches responsibility to speak out not against everyone as if we are the morality police but as concerned neighbors who want to encourage dialogue in this area.

Replies to this message:
 Message 2 by PaulK, posted 05-02-2013 1:38 PM Phat has seen this message but not replied
 Message 3 by Rahvin, posted 05-02-2013 1:44 PM Phat has seen this message but not replied
 Message 4 by Dr Adequate, posted 05-02-2013 1:54 PM Phat has seen this message but not replied
 Message 5 by New Cat's Eye, posted 05-02-2013 2:05 PM Phat has seen this message but not replied
 Message 6 by nwr, posted 05-02-2013 2:35 PM Phat has seen this message but not replied
 Message 13 by AZPaul3, posted 05-02-2013 9:24 PM Phat has not replied
 Message 29 by Percy, posted 05-03-2013 10:43 AM Phat has seen this message but not replied
 Message 49 by ringo, posted 05-04-2013 1:52 PM Phat has seen this message but not replied

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17822
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.2


Message 2 of 175 (698006)
05-02-2013 1:38 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by Phat
05-02-2013 12:59 PM


Correcting Phat's misrepresentation
quote:
(I maintain that my argument is not bigoted and is sound and would appreciate discussing this topic further in this new thread.)
Do you actually intend to PRODUCE your argument ? Your refusal to do so is one of the reasons that I consider you to be a bigot.
quote:
Patel was correct, for that was the essence of the rants directed against me as the argument picked up steam. The basic rant was not that I supported the right of gays to marry...it was the sheer audacity of my even questioning another persons choice of morality.
I think you mean that instead of falling into your rhetorical trap, your opponents made points that you couldn't answer. Especially as you were unwilling to actually state what your argument actually was.
quote:
Thus, my beliefs are by definition my opinions and prejudices and involve hatred and intolerance. But does intolerance in and of itself qualify as bigoted? If so, I receive it back.
And this is a typical response of bigots to being called on their bigotry. If your only response to my point is an empty tu quoque can I not reasonably conclude that I am correct ?
quote:
At the time i read the article, I laughed at the supposed absurdity of a guy marrying his dog or his car.
And you should have realised that the claim was a strawman. In lieu of an actual argument Patel attempts to link gay marriage with the idea of marrying a car.
If someone genuinely had a good argument against gay marriage they wouldn't stop to such tactics. It is exactly this common pattern that leads me to conclude that the real opposition to gay marriage is founded on bigotry.
quote:
Getting back to Patels question as to "who says" what is socially acceptable, I challenge anyone to tell me that everyone should butt out of any and all human desires and let humans do whatever they want. My argument is that it is my churches responsibility to speak out not against everyone as if we are the morality police but as concerned neighbors who want to encourage dialogue in this area.
Well, if you're supporting Patel you think that the churches should engage in slimy and dishonest tactics to manipulate the law-making process. I really don't think that that's a Christian attitude - or anything that anyone SHOULD engage in.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Phat, posted 05-02-2013 12:59 PM Phat has seen this message but not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 50 by NoNukes, posted 05-04-2013 5:11 PM PaulK has not replied

  
Rahvin
Member
Posts: 4032
Joined: 07-01-2005
Member Rating: 9.2


(1)
Message 3 of 175 (698007)
05-02-2013 1:44 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by Phat
05-02-2013 12:59 PM


I'm goign to just slightly change this for you:
Patel was correct, for that was the essence of the rants directed against me as the argument picked up steam. The basic rant was not that I supported the right of interracial couples to marry...it was the sheer audacity of my even questioning another persons choice of morality
When I change the word "gays" to "interracial couples," that statement becomes very obviously racist.
Do you perhaps see why indeed, questioning a basic human right on the shear basis of sexual orientation is the very definition of bigotry?
The fact that you don;t support enshrining your bigotry in law makes you a little better than those who do...
...but if somebody said "white folks shouldn't marry coloreds, that's indecent," you'd easily see why that person was a racist bigot.
You;re doing exactly the same thing with gays. There is no difference, none at all, except that the target of your bigotry is a sexual orientation rather than a skin color.

The human understanding when it has once adopted an opinion (either as being the received opinion or as being agreeable to itself) draws all things else to support and agree with it. - Francis Bacon
"There are two novels that can change a bookish fourteen-year old's life: The Lord of the Rings and Atlas Shrugged. One is a childish fantasy that often engenders a lifelong obsession with its unbelievable heroes, leading to an emotionally stunted, socially crippled adulthood, unable to deal with the real world. The other, of course, involves orcs." - John Rogers
A world that can be explained even with bad reasons is a familiar world. But, on the other hand, in a universe suddenly divested of illusions and lights, man feels an alien, a stranger. His exile is without remedy since he is deprived of the memory of a lost home or the hope of a promised land. This divorce between man and his life, the actor and his setting, is properly the feeling of absurdity. — Albert Camus
"...the pious hope that by combining numerous little turds of variously tainted data, one can obtain a valuable result; but in fact, the outcome is merely a larger than average pile of shit." - Barash, David 1995.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Phat, posted 05-02-2013 12:59 PM Phat has seen this message but not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 7 by Taq, posted 05-02-2013 6:36 PM Rahvin has replied

  
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 285 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


(3)
Message 4 of 175 (698009)
05-02-2013 1:54 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by Phat
05-02-2013 12:59 PM


Your post is rather fragmentary, I don't see one long chain of argument. So I'll just comment on a few bits of it.
Neal Patel writes:
Macklemore articulates the unfortunate choice presented to us by our present cultural dialogue:support same-sex marriage or be found guilty of hatred and bigotry. The fact that the dialogue is framed in this way is a glorious success for supporters. This unsavory choice is also reflected in the terminology now used. What used to be called gay marriage or same-sex marriage is now often referred to as marriage equality
This lexical maneuver is brilliant because it forces those who oppose same-sex marriage to say that they are against equality. Everybody knows that nobody but the ignorant and the bigoted are opposed to equality. I don’t really fault the supporters for shaping the dialogue in this way, since they are utterly convinced that this is essentially a civil rights issue—the modern-day equivalent of the anti-slavery and anti-segregation movements.
But this is not a "lexical maneuver". That's the question. Should a man have the same right to marry the man he loves, as a woman does to marry the man she loves --- or, indeed, the man she doesn't love but is a billionaire with a heart condition?
Now, Patel tries to reframe his opinions as support for "traditional marriage". But no-one's against traditional marriage. Go for it. Have all the traditional marriages you want. Your gay relatives will turn up and throw confetti. Preventing gay marriage will not cause a single gay man to think: "Damn, I can't marry my boyfriend, whom I love, so instead I will marry a woman to whom I am incapable of even feeling attraction". So "traditional marriage" is not hurt nor even reduced in quantity by all the gay marriages in the world, why should it be?
Of course, marriage can't be quite according to Biblical traditions --- for example, we don't stone the bride to death if she's not a virgin on her wedding night. But that reform wasn't introduced by the supporters of gay marriage. That ship sailed long ago.
Keep in mind, now...that I had already stated that my personal rant was not in opposition to same sex marriage as a right. My opposition, which is directed at the church and not at secular society, was that we need to have a dialogue on our choices of morality and in setting an example for society to follow. The discussion should focus on what human behavior should be if in fact consensus is desired...a culture divided against itself is weak.
But "a culture divided against itself is weak" is something of an ad hoc argument, is it not? After all, you do not on that basis demand that the government should legislate for One True Religion, do you? Or for One True Music or One True Literature? So why should it legislate for One True Form Of Marriage?
And as I pointed out on the other thread, a majority of Americans support gay marriage. If we want the culture to stop being divided, now's the time for you hold-outs to fall in line. But I don't advocate that, I set a smaller price on cultural unity than you do. Some churches can perform gay marriages, and some can refuse to. That's OK with me, the gay people can get married in churches that don't think they'll burn in hell for being gay.
Getting back to Patels question as to "who says" what is socially acceptable, I challenge anyone to tell me that everyone should butt out of any and all human desires and let humans do whatever they want.
Well, not "any and all", and not "whatever". We feel quite entitled to interfere with the desires of serial killers, to take an obvious example.
But when it comes to gay marriage, I always think of what Thomas Jefferson said about religion: "The legitimate powers of government extend to such acts only as are injurious to others. But it does me no injury for my neighbor to say there are twenty gods or no God. It neither picks my pocket nor breaks my leg." Now, does not the same apply to gay marriage? If two women get married, does it pick my pocket or break my leg? It does not.
---
So, is opposition to gay marriage bigotry? Well, I'm leaning on the "yes" side of this question. Because people who oppose it are not opposing it because it will "pick their pockets or break their legs" but just because they don't like it, so they would like to stop people doing it. Well, I don't like rap music, but it would be bigoted and intolerant of me to call for a law preventing other consenting adults from making it and listening to it. It neither picks my pocket nor breaks my leg, why should I give a damn? It does not prevent me from listening to why I like. Nor does it hurt "traditional music" --- rap musicians do not prevent anyone who pleases from listening to Bach or English folk song if that's what they want to do. My position, probably shared by a majority of Americans (unlike opposition to gay marriage) is that rap music is simply not my cup of tea. Well, that's OK, I don't have to listen to it and you don't have to marry a man. Why should there be legislation against it?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Phat, posted 05-02-2013 12:59 PM Phat has seen this message but not replied

  
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


(2)
Message 5 of 175 (698011)
05-02-2013 2:05 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by Phat
05-02-2013 12:59 PM


My argument is that it is my churches responsibility to speak out not against everyone as if we are the morality police but as concerned neighbors who want to encourage dialogue in this area.
What are your concerns, exactly?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Phat, posted 05-02-2013 12:59 PM Phat has seen this message but not replied

  
nwr
Member
Posts: 6408
From: Geneva, Illinois
Joined: 08-08-2005
Member Rating: 5.1


(1)
Message 6 of 175 (698018)
05-02-2013 2:35 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by Phat
05-02-2013 12:59 PM


Phat writes:
Is It Bigoted To Have A Supported Opinion?
tldr

Fundamentalism - the anti-American, anti-Christian branch of American Christianity

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Phat, posted 05-02-2013 12:59 PM Phat has seen this message but not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 47 by xongsmith, posted 05-03-2013 2:26 PM nwr has seen this message but not replied

  
Taq
Member
Posts: 9975
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 5.7


(2)
Message 7 of 175 (698054)
05-02-2013 6:36 PM
Reply to: Message 3 by Rahvin
05-02-2013 1:44 PM


When I change the word "gays" to "interracial couples," that statement becomes very obviously racist.
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.
The question is really about whether or not it is right to discriminate against homosexuals. Discrimination in and of itself is not wrong.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 3 by Rahvin, posted 05-02-2013 1:44 PM Rahvin has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 8 by Rahvin, posted 05-02-2013 6:41 PM Taq has replied
 Message 18 by PaulK, posted 05-03-2013 1:14 AM Taq has not replied

  
Rahvin
Member
Posts: 4032
Joined: 07-01-2005
Member Rating: 9.2


(4)
Message 8 of 175 (698055)
05-02-2013 6:41 PM
Reply to: Message 7 by Taq
05-02-2013 6:36 PM


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.
The question is really about whether or not it is right to discriminate against homosexuals. Discrimination in and of itself is not wrong.
I'm fairly certain that we are talking exclusively about relationships between consenting adults. At least, I am.
You;re right that discrimination is not wrong - but discrimination without an actual basis beyond "sexual orientation" or "skin color" and so on is.
Pedophilia involves a sexual participant that is not a consenting adult and therefore is rape each and every time. It misses the target by a pretty wide margin to compare that to homosexual sex between adults.
Don;t fall for the bigots' arguments. Sure, they like to continue along saying "but what about a man and a toaster" or "a man and a dolphin" or "a man and a child." But those are all slippery slope arguments - logical fallacies. All we're talking about is a relationship between consenting adults, and making sure that social mores do not arbitrarily restrict those relationships.
Edited by Rahvin, : No reason given.

The human understanding when it has once adopted an opinion (either as being the received opinion or as being agreeable to itself) draws all things else to support and agree with it. - Francis Bacon
"There are two novels that can change a bookish fourteen-year old's life: The Lord of the Rings and Atlas Shrugged. One is a childish fantasy that often engenders a lifelong obsession with its unbelievable heroes, leading to an emotionally stunted, socially crippled adulthood, unable to deal with the real world. The other, of course, involves orcs." - John Rogers
A world that can be explained even with bad reasons is a familiar world. But, on the other hand, in a universe suddenly divested of illusions and lights, man feels an alien, a stranger. His exile is without remedy since he is deprived of the memory of a lost home or the hope of a promised land. This divorce between man and his life, the actor and his setting, is properly the feeling of absurdity. — Albert Camus
"...the pious hope that by combining numerous little turds of variously tainted data, one can obtain a valuable result; but in fact, the outcome is merely a larger than average pile of shit." - Barash, David 1995.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 7 by Taq, posted 05-02-2013 6:36 PM Taq has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 9 by Phat, posted 05-02-2013 6:59 PM Rahvin has replied
 Message 10 by Taq, posted 05-02-2013 7:07 PM Rahvin has replied

  
Phat
Member
Posts: 18262
From: Denver,Colorado USA
Joined: 12-30-2003
Member Rating: 1.1


Message 9 of 175 (698057)
05-02-2013 6:59 PM
Reply to: Message 8 by Rahvin
05-02-2013 6:41 PM


We Are All Role Models
Rahvin writes:
I'm fairly certain that we are talking exclusively about relationships between consenting adults. At least, I am.
You;re right that discrimination is not wrong - but discrimination without an actual basis beyond "sexual orientation" or "skin color" and so on is.
In essence, then...our discussion appears to be regarding consenting adult behavior. Does everyone agree with this, or are we still picking on same sex marriage?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 8 by Rahvin, posted 05-02-2013 6:41 PM Rahvin has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 11 by Rahvin, posted 05-02-2013 7:07 PM Phat has seen this message but not replied
 Message 24 by Straggler, posted 05-03-2013 9:05 AM Phat has seen this message but not replied

  
Taq
Member
Posts: 9975
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 5.7


Message 10 of 175 (698058)
05-02-2013 7:07 PM
Reply to: Message 8 by Rahvin
05-02-2013 6:41 PM


I'm fairly certain that we are talking exclusively about relationships between consenting adults. At least, I am.
All I am saying is that we need to be careful not to conflate one idea with another.
I thing it makes a much stronger argument to do what you just did which is to focus on the right of adults to consent. Using an argument where you replace A with B, and then show how the argument fails with B, is not always a valid way to make an argument, IMHO.
You;re right that discrimination is not wrong - but discrimination without an actual basis beyond "sexual orientation" or "skin color" and so on is.
Right, so we need to ask why some people think it is ok to discriminate on the basis of sexual orientation but not ok to discriminate on the basis of race.
Don;t fall for the bigots' arguments.
Don't commit logical fallacies.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 8 by Rahvin, posted 05-02-2013 6:41 PM Rahvin has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 12 by Rahvin, posted 05-02-2013 7:17 PM Taq has replied

  
Rahvin
Member
Posts: 4032
Joined: 07-01-2005
Member Rating: 9.2


(1)
Message 11 of 175 (698059)
05-02-2013 7:07 PM
Reply to: Message 9 by Phat
05-02-2013 6:59 PM


Re: We Are All Role Models
In essence, then...our discussion appears to be regarding consenting adult behavior. Does everyone agree with this, or are we still picking on same sex marriage?
The whole point was same sex relationships, Phat.
You expressed that, while you think it should be legal, you believe that the church should "discourage" same-sex relationships.
You view same-sex relationships as morally inferior to heterosexual relationships.
If you want to talk about role models, well...when I look at the "role models" of today who say the same things you're saying, all I can see are clones of the bigots of yesteryear who used the same arguments practically to the letter to argue against interracial relationships. Even after it was conceded that such relationships should be legal, they were still "frowned upon" by the perpetuating bigots of the day...a legacy we still live with today in many areas, as shown recently on the news where a Southern High School just had their very first racially integrated Prom.
You'll be remembered, Phat, with the same disdain that we all hold when we think of those racial-segregators.
There is nothing at all, not even a little, wrong with same-sex relationships. They should be celebrated every bit as much as their heterosexual counterparts. Any "role model" who suggests to children that they should avoid the equally positive relationships of the same-sex variety is no good role model at all.

The human understanding when it has once adopted an opinion (either as being the received opinion or as being agreeable to itself) draws all things else to support and agree with it. - Francis Bacon
"There are two novels that can change a bookish fourteen-year old's life: The Lord of the Rings and Atlas Shrugged. One is a childish fantasy that often engenders a lifelong obsession with its unbelievable heroes, leading to an emotionally stunted, socially crippled adulthood, unable to deal with the real world. The other, of course, involves orcs." - John Rogers
A world that can be explained even with bad reasons is a familiar world. But, on the other hand, in a universe suddenly divested of illusions and lights, man feels an alien, a stranger. His exile is without remedy since he is deprived of the memory of a lost home or the hope of a promised land. This divorce between man and his life, the actor and his setting, is properly the feeling of absurdity. — Albert Camus
"...the pious hope that by combining numerous little turds of variously tainted data, one can obtain a valuable result; but in fact, the outcome is merely a larger than average pile of shit." - Barash, David 1995.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 9 by Phat, posted 05-02-2013 6:59 PM Phat has seen this message but not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 14 by Dogmafood, posted 05-02-2013 9:59 PM Rahvin has not replied
 Message 27 by New Cat's Eye, posted 05-03-2013 10:36 AM Rahvin has not replied

  
Rahvin
Member
Posts: 4032
Joined: 07-01-2005
Member Rating: 9.2


Message 12 of 175 (698060)
05-02-2013 7:17 PM
Reply to: Message 10 by Taq
05-02-2013 7:07 PM


thing it makes a much stronger argument to do what you just did which is to focus on the right of adults to consent. Using an argument where you replace A with B, and then show how the argument fails with B, is not always a valid way to make an argument, IMHO.
It's perfectly valid when A and B are actually interchangeable. Since in this case we're talking about similarly arbitrary characteristics (skin color, sexual orientation), the comparison is entirely valid. The "consenting adults" rationale is exactly what won the day in Loving v Virginia, and the entire debate over same-sex relationships mirrors almost identically the arguments of interracial marriage. This is a matter of simple fact.
Right, so we need to ask why some people think it is ok to discriminate on the basis of sexual orientation but not ok to discriminate on the basis of race.
That's one tactic. In my case I simply chose to associate today's bigots with yesterday's bigots. It's easy, it's elegant, and it's completely appropriate given the arguments being used on both sides are the same.
Don't commit logical fallacies.
I do try not to. If you believe I've committed one, it would be helpful if you would name it and point out where.

The human understanding when it has once adopted an opinion (either as being the received opinion or as being agreeable to itself) draws all things else to support and agree with it. - Francis Bacon
"There are two novels that can change a bookish fourteen-year old's life: The Lord of the Rings and Atlas Shrugged. One is a childish fantasy that often engenders a lifelong obsession with its unbelievable heroes, leading to an emotionally stunted, socially crippled adulthood, unable to deal with the real world. The other, of course, involves orcs." - John Rogers
A world that can be explained even with bad reasons is a familiar world. But, on the other hand, in a universe suddenly divested of illusions and lights, man feels an alien, a stranger. His exile is without remedy since he is deprived of the memory of a lost home or the hope of a promised land. This divorce between man and his life, the actor and his setting, is properly the feeling of absurdity. — Albert Camus
"...the pious hope that by combining numerous little turds of variously tainted data, one can obtain a valuable result; but in fact, the outcome is merely a larger than average pile of shit." - Barash, David 1995.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 10 by Taq, posted 05-02-2013 7:07 PM Taq has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 30 by Taq, posted 05-03-2013 10:45 AM Rahvin has not replied

  
AZPaul3
Member
Posts: 8513
From: Phoenix
Joined: 11-06-2006
Member Rating: 5.3


(5)
Message 13 of 175 (698070)
05-02-2013 9:24 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by Phat
05-02-2013 12:59 PM


We "says who".
My argument is that it is my churches responsibility to speak out not against everyone as if we are the morality police but as concerned neighbors who want to encourage dialogue in this area.
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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Phat, posted 05-02-2013 12:59 PM Phat has not replied

  
Dogmafood
Member (Idle past 349 days)
Posts: 1815
From: Ontario Canada
Joined: 08-04-2010


Message 14 of 175 (698075)
05-02-2013 9:59 PM
Reply to: Message 11 by Rahvin
05-02-2013 7:07 PM


Re: We Are All Role Models
There is nothing at all, not even a little, wrong with same-sex relationships.
What if everybody was gay? There might be something wrong with that.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 11 by Rahvin, posted 05-02-2013 7:07 PM Rahvin has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 15 by Dr Adequate, posted 05-02-2013 10:07 PM Dogmafood has replied
 Message 16 by AZPaul3, posted 05-02-2013 10:11 PM Dogmafood has replied

  
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 285 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


(4)
Message 15 of 175 (698076)
05-02-2013 10:07 PM
Reply to: Message 14 by Dogmafood
05-02-2013 9:59 PM


Re: We Are All Role Models
What if everybody was gay? There might be something wrong with that.
Pace Kant, that's not really a useful rule of thumb. If everyone was a fireman, then we'd all starve to death for want of farmers. And yet ...

This message is a reply to:
 Message 14 by Dogmafood, posted 05-02-2013 9:59 PM Dogmafood has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 22 by Dogmafood, posted 05-03-2013 8:09 AM Dr Adequate has replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024