Is it fair to label opposers of same-sex marriage bigots?

1. 0

   LoliHeyposted 7 years ago

   Is it fair to label opposers of same-sex marriage bigots?
   
   If you value traditional marriage, people assume you hate gays, and are homophobe.  But that is not always the case at all.  I find that the LGBT and Liberals are doing an excellent job at demonizing anyone who disagrees with them, and even bullying companies and people to conform to their way of thinking.  Is it fair to force someone to agree with you?  Can't it be respected that people who practice certain religions can't condone it, but still respect and love gay people?

   replyreport
2. 45

   bradmasterOCcalposted 7 years ago

   There is a difference between the people in a group and the group itself. The LGBT is a militant group advocating their lifestyle, and protecting it with the Political Correctness. However, they only adhere to PC outgoing, and they refuse to accept the concept of PC when it is directed at them.
   
   Gay people should not be respected or loved merely because they are gay. People regardless of their groups, and affiliations can only earn friendship and respect as individuals in their totality.
   
   I have friends and acquaintances of all kinds, and even if I am not a fan of their groups, I overlook the group in favor of the individuals.
   
   Name calling, intimidation, and other social pressures are the favorite devices of any politically militant group. Most of what they do doesn't make you want to be on their side, even if you were inclined to be sympathetic with them.
   
   They become the tail wagging the dog, and the government allows them to be taken off the leash. These are social issues and not in the wheelhouse of the government. The government can't even deal with the objective matters like budgets, and the economy.
   
   A personal opinion, or a belief should not be changed by government or militant groups. They LGBT labels any person resisting their lifestyle as homophobic. They insinuate that it is hate, when it could really just be a difference of opinion. You don't have to hate someone or something to disagree with them or it, but they want everyone to believe that it is hate.
   So it is not only unfair, it is unjust.

   replyreport
3. 81

   jlparkposted 7 years ago

   Is it respectful to deny two consenting adults the right you yourself enjoy? The ability to marry the one they love, and the benefits that come with it?
   
   There is disagreement with it - which is fine - many people disagree with marriage in general.
   
   But then there is 'you are lesser than I' - the suggestion that those who are in same sex relationships are not equal to those in heterosexual relationships. Suggesting that people have a 'different' type of marriage because they are in a same sex relationship is like suggesting different water fountains or toilets for those who's skin colour is different.
   
   The same arguments were used against interracial marriage in the past - and what do we think of those people who hold those views now?
   
   Holding the view that another human being is lesser than another is a bigoted view. Whilst I probably wouldn't call someone a bigot, one can hold views that are.
   
   You are welcome to feel as you do - but actively seeking to deny rights to those who happen to be different to you is another story.
   
   Citing religion doesn't help either - not all are of the same faith, and particularly in the USA, there is a seperation of church and state - therefore the religious beliefs of anyone should not have a place in the making of laws.
   
   Seeking to change the law from Marriage Equality is seeking to remove rights from other human beings. That is inhumane.
   
   I wouldn't call anyone personally bigoted but ideas can be. I'm more than happy to disagree with people on the topic of SSM, but people's rights should not be put to popular vote.

   replyreport
   1. 0

      LoliHeyposted 7 years agoin reply to this

      Interracial marriages were frowned upon because of racism.  Same sex marriages are viewed as a sin and wrong by others.  If people are given the choice to vote, they should vote accordingly to what they believe.  No one thinks they are better!

      replyreport
   2. 81

      jlparkposted 7 years agoin reply to this

      Yet you are placing faith above others rights which is placing one above another. Seperation of church and state - whether it's against yr faith should not enter in2 law. I note how u ignored everything else. Yet u can't see how it is like racism.

      replyreport
   3. 0

      LoliHeyposted 7 years agoin reply to this

      I don't have enough room for everything else.  I think that everyone has different opinions, and the Left should not force everyone to share their viewpoints.  Could we argue they are bigoted and intolerant of the opposed?

      replyreport
   4. 81

      jlparkposted 7 years agoin reply to this

      No one is forcing you to change your views. You are entitled to them. But others are also entitled to their view on your view - which may be that it's bigoted. Yr views also should not be used to deny or create laws to strip others of rights.

      replyreport
   5. 0

      SonOfSkyrim201posted 7 years agoin reply to this

      The problem with that is that it's someone's rights over another.

      replyreport
   6. 81

      jlparkposted 7 years agoin reply to this

      Who's over who's Skyrim? Everyone is entitled to their opinion, and their opinion on another's opinion. What they can't do is use religion in te making of laws or denying rights to people - yr own constitution makes that clear. Freedom of and from.

      replyreport
   7. 0

      SonOfSkyrim201posted 7 years agoin reply to this

      But some people wouldn't agree about what rights people should have.

      replyreport
   8. 81

      jlparkposted 7 years agoin reply to this

      They're welcome to disagree - but if it is denying rights to a particular group, rights that are afforded to all others bar that group, then it's discriminatory. So, disagreement with the group is fine - as long as they are afforded the same rights.

      replyreport
   9. 86

      RJ Schwartzposted 7 years agoin reply to this

      But the so called rights are after changing the rules of the game....

      replyreport
   10. 81

       jlparkposted 7 years agoin reply to this

       Er, how? Marriage is a contract between two consenting adults. Rights previously afforded to all adult aside from those who weren't heterosexual. So, afforded to all humans except some - therefore discriminatory, and unconstitutional.

       replyreport
4. 86

   RJ Schwartzposted 7 years ago

   Great topic.  I've also been thinking about this.  The Left immediately labels anyone who doesn't believe as they do.  Think Global Warming - "deniers"  against homosexuality - "homophobe"  and so on. They use militant tactics to demand complicity or face a media hailstorm.

   replyreport
5. 60

   moneyminditposted 7 years ago

   The Constitution gives us freedom of expression.  However, the Constitution has no power over the fact that humans are emotional creatures.  Anytime somebody opposes something, the opposed get defensive and negatively label the one opposing.  For example, say something negative about Jewish people and you will quickly be labeled as anti-Semite.  Say something negative about black people, and you will quickly be labeled a racist.  Say something negative about immigration, and you will be labeled as somebody who hates Mexicans.  Let's not even get into opinions about Muslims.  The bottom-line is that freedom of expression comes at a price. 
   
   I do not understand why a man would be attracted to another man.  I just don't get it.  However, if two men want to get married, then by all means, go for it.  I do understand why one woman would be attracted to another woman.  What is not to like about a woman?  I love women.  If two women want to be married, then by all means, go for it.  Marriage is a contract that grants legal rights to couples.  Nothing more, nothing less.

   replyreport
   1. 81

      jlparkposted 7 years agoin reply to this

      Yeah, freedom of speech is not freedom from consequence of said speech. I agree.

      replyreport
   2. 45

      bradmasterOCcalposted 7 years agoin reply to this

      Money Man
      There are better ways to get that contract, than through marriage. Marriage sb left as a ceremony, but it has no valid contract, that is why the state makes presumptions when it comes time to divorce. A personal partnership contract is bett

      replyreport
   3. 0

      LoliHeyposted 7 years agoin reply to this

      Freedom of speech is bad if you are disagreeing with liberals. Then it's hate speech. Then you suffer name calling because it's easier to label people bigots than try to understand them or try to have debate.

      replyreport
   4. 81

      jlparkposted 7 years agoin reply to this

      Yet, you don't mind calling those who disagree with you names - 'sinners' etc (ignoring yr own). Which makes it difficult to debate. So, if you'd like to debate - I'm more than happy - and note, I've never called u or anyone names for disagreeing.

      replyreport
   5. 0

      LoliHeyposted 7 years agoin reply to this

      Everyone is a sinner.  That includes me.

      replyreport
   6. 60

      moneyminditposted 7 years agoin reply to this

      Lolita,
      
      In order for people to be sinners, there would have to be a God.  Shakespeare said, "There is no right or wrong. Thinking makes it so."

      replyreport
6. 86

   tamarawilhiteposted 7 years ago

   We know from many studies over many years the best family structure for children is a married mother father couple that is together for the life of the child.
   EVERY family structure is inferior to this in terms of life outcomes. Unmarried couples see more abuse, less saving for the future, greater odds of splitting. Man who isn't the kids' father is 20x more likely to kill the kids, somewhat more likely to abuse her.
   A single mother without a solid male partner ends up with kids 2-3 times more likely to: go to jail, be held back in school, become mentally ill, drop out of school, join a gang, become an addict, have a kid out of wedlock.
   For married biological parents, the odds of such a failure are around 10%. If you have a single mother, it is 30%. Family structures in between are in between those stats. When a same sex couple raises an opposite sex child, the life outcomes come out WORSE than if by a single mother, per the Regnerus’ study. Studies of self selected happy lesbians don't count in this discussion.
   Same sex marriage undermines the stability of marriage in several ways. The first is their much higher break up rate - far higher than the heterosexual divorce rate. And, indirectly, this makes divorce of heterosexuals even more OK. The more direct assault on marriage is the "monogomish" view by homosexual men - where almost NO married gay men were monogamous with their partners. All couples together after five years in numerous surveys had rules for adultery - which undermines the concept of marriage. Would you consider that "marriage"?
   If marriage is two men or two women or whomever else, why not 3? There are already news reports of lesbian throuples, three gay Asian men, two lesbians in California who added a man to the family ... though polygamy with an essentially divided father's attention and many more single men denied potential partners by rich men having several is a contributing factor to Muslim violence.
   And saying marriage is whatever you want it to be, not an absolute commitment, gender and number of partners irrelevant, you shift society toward the unstable family structure and bad life outcomes.   
   
   So do we undermine a universal institution that is clearly to society's interests in a way no one ever has before (even the Greeks said marriage is a man and woman)? Or do we dramatically alter society for a fad because it is new and cool?

   replyreport
   1. 0

      LoliHeyposted 7 years agoin reply to this

      Awesome answer.

      replyreport
   2. 86

      RJ Schwartzposted 7 years agoin reply to this

      Great answer

      replyreport
   3. 69

      aguasilverposted 7 years agoin reply to this

      Excellent answer

      replyreport
7. 59

   Link10103posted 7 years ago

   If you don't approve of same sex marriage and that's it, fine.
   
   If you don't approve and actively go out of your way to prevent people who love each other in the same exact way straight people do from getting married, yeah, you would be a bigot.
   
   If you place your god's laws above the law of the country you reside in you're in the wrong place.
   
   Also isn't polygamy more common in the Bible than monogamy? I would think the more common one would count as traditional.

   replyreport
   1. 0

      LoliHeyposted 7 years agoin reply to this

      No Link, you're incorrect about the polygamy thing. Once again, you're going to reference a book you never read, and only heard about.  Are any of your thought your own?

      replyreport
   2. 59

      Link10103posted 7 years agoin reply to this

      Lol, Loli please see the irony of that.
      
      And it was more of a question on my part, though I'm looking at 3 notable people of the bible who had multiples wives/concubines...

      replyreport
   3. 0

      LoliHeyposted 7 years agoin reply to this

      Link, in the New Testament, the new covenant, it is made clear that monogamy is the only way to go.  Just because polygamy was practiced in the OT does not make it right with God!

      replyreport
   4. 59

      Link10103posted 7 years agoin reply to this

      At what point was the Old Testament ever nullified? I don't think I've ever gotten an answer to that question.

      replyreport
   5. 0

      LoliHeyposted 7 years agoin reply to this

      It wasn't nullified.  But many laws and ways are the old way and the New Testament changed things.

      replyreport
   6. 59

      Link10103posted 7 years agoin reply to this

      So it wasn't nullified, but some things suddenly don't apply anymore.
      
      Odd. Such as? One example is fine...

      replyreport
   7. 0

      LoliHeyposted 7 years agoin reply to this

      You no longer stone people for committing adultery.  When some guys wanted to stone a woman, Jesus told them "Let the one who is without sin cast the first stone."

      replyreport
   8. 59

      Link10103posted 7 years agoin reply to this

      Mmkay.
      
      And for what reason was that not initially a rule? The need for a new testament to begin with causes a contradiction honestly.

      replyreport
   9. 81

      jlparkposted 7 years agoin reply to this

      Yeah, and why r only those that people seem 2 agree with the 'carried over' from the OT into the NT but not the ones now frowned upon? stoning is bad now, but gays MUST follow the Lev laws? Who decides what's carried over? Jesus said nil abt homos

      replyreport
8. 79

   Annsaloposted 7 years ago

   Is it fair to label opposers of same-sex marriage bigots?
   
   Do they simply not like it and choose not to do it? then no they should not be labeled a bigot.
   
   Do they not like it and try to force others not to do it? Do they fight laws for equality simply because they don't agree? Do they use hate language against the said group? If the answer to any of these questions is yes, then a label of bigot is suitable.
   
   Since the start of time humans have found groups of people they don't like for whatever said reason. Then when they get told they actually can't keep treating said group like crap they claim they are the victims. This isn't new.
   
   As long as your dislike for a behavior only impacts you then you aren't a bigot.

   replyreport
   1. 0

      LoliHeyposted 7 years agoin reply to this

      Christians can't be for same sex marriage because then it means they condone it.  God says it's an abomination.

      replyreport
   2. 81

      jlparkposted 7 years agoin reply to this

      But merely disagreeing with it and going about your life rather than fighting laws for equality would still mean you are behaving in s Christian way, and not a bigoted way. Most have no issue of u just disagree.

      replyreport
   3. 79

      Annsaloposted 7 years agoin reply to this

      You don't have to like it, believe in it, or do it. You just can't dictate what OTHER people do. That is where the line is drawn between simply disagreeing and becoming a bigot in my opinion.

      replyreport
   4. 0

      LoliHeyposted 7 years agoin reply to this

      Right, but when they bully establishments and make threats against other establishments that work with them, threatening to boycott, that goes over the line and makes them no better than the opposers.

      replyreport
   5. 79

      Annsaloposted 7 years agoin reply to this

      Not giving money (boycotting) to something you don't believe in is a personal choice, Fighting equality is not a personal choice, it's trying to force your beliefs on others. Apples and oranges.

      replyreport
   6. 81

      jlparkposted 7 years agoin reply to this

      can you provide an example in the news? (Not the bakeries etc - that's actually a different issue). I've very recently seen I think it's Family Council etc demanding a boycott of something because of its positive stance on equality - who's the bully?

      replyreport
   7. 0

      LoliHeyposted 7 years agoin reply to this

      Google it, please.  You'll find it.  I read it a while ago on several sources.  Sorry you can't understand that people are being forced to accept something they don't believe in and ostracized if they do.

      replyreport
   8. 81

      jlparkposted 7 years agoin reply to this

      I'll need a bit more to go on - yr example is very vague

      replyreport
   9. 86

      RJ Schwartzposted 7 years agoin reply to this

      Chik-Fil-A - people demanded it was boycotted beacuse they were against same sex marriage

      replyreport
   10. 59

       Link10103posted 7 years agoin reply to this

       I feel the cause of the protest stemmed from Chick fil la's active financial support to groups oppressing the LGBT community at the time...
       
       Per Wikipedia anyways.

       replyreport
   11. 86

       RJ Schwartzposted 7 years agoin reply to this

       You might be right, I don't really know, just trying to help

       replyreport
   12. 81

       jlparkposted 7 years agoin reply to this

       One Million Moms, Family Council, WBC, Family First - calling for boycotts of many LGBT equality supporting companies a number of times. If you wish I can provide a list of LGBT supporting companies if u want to boycott. Google, IBM, HP, Apple, Kraft

       replyreport
   13. 0

       LoliHeyposted 7 years agoin reply to this

       Chik Fil-A was definitely boycotted because of the founder's religious views.  Bakers and Photography companies do count as businesses.  Sweet Cakes By Melissa was a bakery in Oregon that was shut down.

       replyreport
9. 84

   dashingscorpioposted 7 years ago

   
   
   A Google search for the definition of "bigot" stated the following:
   "a person who is intolerant toward those holding different opinions."
   Anytime someone is overly concerned about people's private love life and relationships it does cause many folks to believe they're in favor of {discrimination} against that group.
   Discrimination against gender, race, religion, or sexual orientation are all is forms of intolerance. Having said that if one opposes same sex marriage but treats everyone the same without feeling "obligated" to offer unsolicited opinions it's not bigotry. Being judgmental is.
   People can support "pro-choice" but personally would never consider having an abortion themselves.
   Some folks for instance oppose interracial marriages or interfaith marriage. Certainly many of them would say they not racist or against a religion. However the fact that it "bothers them" to see other people living their life on their terms is somewhat judgmental.
   Life is a (personal) journey.
   Each of us gets to choose our own friends, lovers, and spouse.
   Same sex marriage and interracial marriage is not mandatory.
   If someone opposes either they can illustrate that by the mate they've chosen for them self. It's no one's business but their own.

   replyreport
10. 82

    junksellerposted 7 years ago

    It is one thing to dislike something. It is another to treat people poorly because of it. I don't like Christianity. But I am not out in the world trying to shut down churches or prevent people from going to them. I don't treat Christians differently. If someone starts saying a prayer, I will politely be quiet until they finish, etc.
    
    It was opposers of same-sex marriage (largely Christians) who threw the first punch in this fight. They could have kept their mouths shut and let others do as they pleased. But they didn't, they took the issue to the courts and made it illegal and have fought bitterly to keep it illegal for decades.
    
    It may not be fair, but because of that history, your side is not going to get much leeway, and I don't really know if you deserve it. You never had to say anything, but you did, and now dealing with that consequence is your burden to bear.
    
    As for respect, I can totally respect someone who doesn't condone a particular behavior IN THEMSELVES. But if they don't condone someone else's personal choice, or they call someone an abomination, is going to go to hell, etc, then, no that is neither respect or love. You can call that what you want, but I will call it what it is: bigotry and hate.

    replyreport