Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

Mdlbuildr wrote:

 MrDwhitey wrote:
I've found bigots often call the people pointing out their bigotry, bigots.

Bigotry is when someone is intolerant towards an opinion that is different than yours.

So if you call someone a bigot because you perceive that they are intolerant of one of your views, they can also call you a bigot because you are intolerant of their views.

They could if you were intolerant of their views. But it's fair game to assume someone who doesn't "believe" in gay marriage prejudiced as their opinion isn't based on rational experience or reason. It's likely it's based on something their religious faction believes, or they're not comfortable with homosexuality.

If one isn't willing to accept all manner of stupidity and idiocy from others apparently one is a bigot, which of course seems like a silly defense someone with bigoted ideas would accuse others of, but apparently is how it works. Complete tolerance of intolerance is the only way to be tolerant.

 d-usa wrote:
These two views are not mutually exclusive, in my opinion

I think this is where a lot of people can agree. But there are some people who are really, really offended by the notion that, if you invite me to your gay wedding then I will come, I will bring you a present, I will even feel genuinely happy for you and wish you and your spouse the enjoyment of many happy years, but yet it will always be just a "marriage" (with the quotation marks) in my heart of hearts. To pull it away from the issue of sexual orientation, the same thing applies about a divorced person getting "remarried." So in my mind, the courteous and therefore right thing to do is simply keep what is in my heart of hearts where it is in that sort of situation. But it's the hypothetical aspect of it, I guess you'd say, that people object to because the real argument comes down to are ABC beliefs the right ones or XYZ, even considering it is perfectly possible for people with both beliefs to coexist peaceably and courteously. The thirst for that conflict is what really baffles me. In that same vein, here's a great question:

 Breotan wrote:
My question is, why are you so upset about his beliefs?

 Manchu wrote:

 d-usa wrote:
These two views are not mutually exclusive, in my opinion

I think this is where a lot of people can agree. But there are some people who are really, really offended by the notion that, if you invite me to your gay wedding then I will come, I will bring you a present, I will even feel genuinely happy for you and wish you and your spouse the enjoyment of many happy years, but yet it will always be just a "marriage" (with the quotation marks) in my heart of hearts. To pull it away from the issue of sexual orientation, the same thing applies about a divorced person getting "remarried." So in my mind, the courteous and therefore right thing to do is simply keep what is in my heart of hearts where it is. But it's the hypothetical aspect of it, I guess you'd say, that people object to because the real argument comes down to are ABC beliefs the right ones or XYZ, even considering it is perfectly possible for people with both beliefs to coexist peaceably and courteously. The thirst for that conflict is what really baffles me. In that same vein, here's a great question:

 Breotan wrote:
My question is, why are you so upset about his beliefs?

I think that's a pretty good summary.

It's okay to be a society where people agree to disagree on things on a personal level, while being tolerant of others.

Right now we still have people who are very vocal on either being on Team "Gay Marriage Is Wrong And Illegal" or Team "Agree That Gay Marriage Is OK And Legal". I think that more and more people are moving to Team "I Think It's Wrong, But Whatever Floats Your Boat, Legal Rights For Everyone", and that team may even be the majority by now, but the "it shouldn't be legal" and "you shouldn't think it's bad" crowds are still making enough noise to keep the conflict going.

If belief alone was the thing I doubt it would be an issue but often it seems those beliefs turn into something more, like support for anti-gay legislation. It can have an impact and isn't just passive.

Well, d-usa, as I often say the side that requires more people to actively care for longer is always going to lose.

Ahtman, I was more getting at the idea that when we're talking about a political conflict we're talking about (at least) two sets of beliefs - and all the sides tend toward fanatical (like hunting for opportunities to evince self-righteous indignation) when it comes to pushing the agenda that allegedly follows from those beliefs. All of this despite the fact that "on the ground" it is perfectly possible for peaceable and courteous co-existence.

Civil rights movements have been successful enough that most people acknowledge that discrimination is bad. Sadly however, that's just led to a lot of people coming up with ways to rationalize their discrimination as not being discrimination.

 redleger wrote:
So, after an equal opportunity class on next month being LGBT awareness , myself and a co-worker were in a discussion on gay marriage. He made a statement that struck me as odd, and rather bigoted, however he seems to defend the statement as not meaning what I think it meant. I would like opinions on how you would interpret this statement. I will quote it exactly to ensure I am not swaying one way or the other.

Please don't get inflammatory, I am just wondering if I am wrong in interpreting this statement in the way I do. What would it mean to you?


"I do not believe in gay marriage"

How would you interpret that?

It clearly must mean he doesn't believe it exists like raptor jesus and the flying spaghetti monster. You should totally tell him all of them exist. It will change his life.

But in all seriousness i think it sounds like what you think. It's usually about religious reasons. He probably doesn't even hate gay people just his religion tells him it's naughty so he falls in line. Ask him about it. Find out for yourself. I mean i once asked a girl that seriously considered being a nun at one point if she didn't like gay people. She said she liked them just doesn't want them to be married.

 d-usa wrote:
It's okay to be a society where people agree to disagree on things on a personal level, while being tolerant of others.

Sure, in some cases disagreement is fine. The problem is that, in this case, the "being gay is wrong" side does not have a credible argument, independent of whether or not they expect other people to follow their beliefs. We should criticize beliefs that are not well supported, and not just say "be tolerant" as a way to negate criticism.

 flamingkillamajig wrote:
. She said she liked them just doesn't want them to be married.

And that's the part where it gets absurd.

If you (generic 'you') disagree with same-sex couples getting married, then don't marry someone of your gender.

Who someone else marries is nothing whatsoever to do with you.

 Peregrine wrote:

 d-usa wrote:
It's okay to be a society where people agree to disagree on things on a personal level, while being tolerant of others.

Sure, in some cases disagreement is fine. The problem is that, in this case, the "being gay is wrong" side does not have a credible argument, independent of whether or not they expect other people to follow their beliefs. We should criticize beliefs that are not well supported, and not just say "be tolerant" as a way to negate criticism.

By no credible argument, are you refering to the fact certain people follow a set of rules written in an ancient book and because you think that book is bologna, you think their argument is not credible?

 Peregrine wrote:

 d-usa wrote:
It's okay to be a society where people agree to disagree on things on a personal level, while being tolerant of others.

Sure, in some cases disagreement is fine. The problem is that, in this case, the "being gay is wrong" side does not have a credible argument, independent of whether or not they expect other people to follow their beliefs. We should criticize beliefs that are not well supported, and not just say "be tolerant" as a way to negate criticism.

Here is one of the Teams in action.

 Tactical_Spam wrote:

By no credible argument, are you refering to the fact certain people follow a set of rules written in an ancient book and because you think that book is bologna, you think their argument is not credible?

Personally, I wouldn't put it quite as strongly as 'not credible'... but there is growing support even within the Christian church for the notion that ancient book is nowhere near as clear on the issue as people have been led to believe.

As with so many things, there are various passages that go either way, and most of the 'against' arguments come from the old testament (which also includes such gems as forbidding the wearing of mixed fabrics, the cutting of beards or hair on the sides of your head, or women wearing pants) which many feel was all thrown out when Jesus came along and said 'Forget all those old rules, just don't be dicks to each other...'


But even if you do believe that the Bible forbids homosexuality, that doesn't give anyone a valid argument for why people not of their faith should be covered by that rule. We don't seem to see Christians arguing that nobody on the planet should be allowed to eat pork, or pick up grapes. And yet for some reason, so many seem to feel that it's their place to cast judgement (which, IIRC, is another thing that the Bible tells them to not do, being God's job and all...) on other peoples' relationships.

It's weird... and rather saddening.

 Tactical_Spam wrote:
By no credible argument, are you refering to the fact certain people follow a set of rules written in an ancient book and because you think that book is bologna, you think their argument is not credible?

Pretty much. Their argument for why being gay is wrong essentially comes down to "because I said so" because none of the supporting evidence holds up to critical analysis. We know that no religion's texts have a credible claim to divine inspiration, and if you take away the religious arguments there's nothing left. I can say "Peregrinism says that not being gay is the worst of all sins" all I want, but nobody is ever going to take it seriously (nor should they!).


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 d-usa wrote:
Here is one of the Teams in action.

And here we see team "compromise at all costs" in action...

 insaniak wrote:

 Tactical_Spam wrote:

By no credible argument, are you refering to the fact certain people follow a set of rules written in an ancient book and because you think that book is bologna, you think their argument is not credible?

Personally, I wouldn't put it quite as strongly as 'not credible'... but there is growing support even within the Christian church for the notion that ancient book is nowhere near as clear on the issue as people have been led to believe.

As with so many things, there are various passages that go either way, and most of the 'against' arguments come from the old testament (which also includes such gems as forbidding the wearing of mixed fabrics, the cutting of beards or hair on the sides of your head, or women wearing pants) which many feel was all thrown out when Jesus came along and said 'Forget all those old rules, just don't be dicks to each other...'


But even if you do believe that the Bible forbids homosexuality, that doesn't give anyone a valid argument for why people not of their faith should be covered by that rule. We don't seem to see Christians arguing that nobody on the planet should be allowed to eat pork, or pick up grapes. And yet for some reason, so many seem to feel that it's their place to cast judgement (which, IIRC, is another thing that the Bible tells them to not do, being God's job and all...) on other peoples' relationships.

It's weird... and rather saddening.

I am led to believe it is rather clear about the issue, but delving into that would be stray into heated off-topic territory and I would not like any warnings from Mods.

 redleger wrote:
So, after an equal opportunity class on next month being LGBT awareness , myself and a co-worker were in a discussion on gay marriage. He made a statement that struck me as odd, and rather bigoted, however he seems to defend the statement as not meaning what I think it meant. I would like opinions on how you would interpret this statement. I will quote it exactly to ensure I am not swaying one way or the other.

Please don't get inflammatory, I am just wondering if I am wrong in interpreting this statement in the way I do. What would it mean to you?


"I do not believe in gay marriage"

How would you interpret that?

In this day and time, it would be obvious to me. Your friend doesn't personally believe in homosexual matrimony.







Automatically Appended Next Post:

 PrehistoricUFO wrote:
If it is a religious belief, then he may have strong beliefs in it and that's his conviction.

There's also the camp that feels that the State shouldn't get involved in what the Church does (making gay marriage laws) - LGBT people can go to city hall and have a ceremony, but forcing a priest to do something he may not want to do is pretty authoritarian. Considering it's Leftists doing this, this is not unusual. This is what authors/political commentators like Ben Shapiro usually argue in their debates and lectures.

Any other train of argument is just baseless in most cases. I don't think anyone can provide a real solid argument as to why two people of the same gender can't live together and be exclusive forever. That's all marriage really is aside from the legal bindings - but from what I understand the gay community got all those same legal rights and everything a long time ago, the Civil Partnership Act in 2004 in the UK for example. Not sure about the States, though.

Milo Yiannopoulos is gay and he debated another gay man and the argument against gay marriage laws in the UK went something like this: "Gays already had all the same rights as married people (Civil Partnership Act) except for the religious aspects. They used to sit in the back seat of the bus until they finally got a seat in the same front row, but that wasn't good enough for them, they wouldn't stop until they were sitting in the same seat."

Personally I don't care what happens as I'm not religious nor do I care what people do in their private sexual lives. I'm just explaining some of the rationale people use for 'not believing it' as the OP asked.

I'm a firm believer that government, on any level, shouldn't be involved in the marriage business. The only reason for it is to generate revenue from marriage licenses.

By the States being involved, it also gave the Feds another reason to step outside their Constitutional authority because of identity politics.

People (i.e. consenting adults) should be able to partner in such a manner without the .gov nosing in on it.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Peregrine wrote:


And here we see team "compromise at all costs" in action...

Compromise, logical discourse, and finding common cause is far better than enforcing change by radicalism, suppression of dissent via social pressure, and the barrel of a gun (force of law).


Which is what many on the Left nowadays are all too happy to do.

 oldravenman3025 wrote:
The only reason for it is to generate revenue from marriage licenses.

No, the reason for it is that it saves most people a lot of time and money on making their own version of a marriage contract when all they really need is the same standard contract that everyone else has. The only people who benefit from abolishing government-recognized marriage are lawyers.

Compromise, logical discourse, and finding common cause is far better than enforcing change by radicalism, suppression of dissent via social pressure, and the barrel of a gun (force of law).

This assumes that both sides have a legitimate case, and compromise is a reasonable thing to expect. If one side is clearly wrong then why should there be a compromise? If my position is that you should give me $10,000 just because I'm awesome and your position is that you shouldn't I don't think you're going to be at all convinced by the idea that we should compromise and have you give me $5,000.

Which is what many on the Left nowadays are all too happy to do.

And you think the Right isn't? Or the Center?

 Manchu wrote:
Ahtman, I was more getting at the idea that when we're talking about a political conflict we're talking about (at least) two sets of beliefs - and all the sides tend toward fanatical (like hunting for opportunities to evince self-righteous indignation) when it comes to pushing the agenda that allegedly follows from those beliefs. All of this despite the fact that "on the ground" it is perfectly possible for peaceable and courteous co-existence.

And the reality is that when Referendum 201 - Ban on Gay Marriage, goes up for a vote, people who don't care one way or the other don't matter. The only people who do are the people who cared enough to go out and ban gay marriage, or not ban it. I suspect that the number of people who" don't care" goes down (but is not zero), when the issue actually lands on their front door. I think Ahtman was getting at that with his post, and it's also why Peregrine's position that ignoring something for the sake of a facade of tolerance is bad probably shouldn't be immediately dismissed (even if I disagree with his specific thought process on the issue).

It only takes a few people to make something an issue, but those few people are the ones who will decide the issue so really the silent majority doesn't matter outside of noting they exist and they are silent.

That said, I think you and D-USA are right in that the day to day dialogue of politics is a lot more about childish bickering over who got who now than anything of importance.

 Frazzled wrote:

And assuming that gay couples can't raise children. Plus I have yet to see someone who is anti-gay marriage want to insist on procreation for the marriage to be legal. Contract claim based on actual reason is invalid.

You're ignoring history. That was the purpose of marriage. Indeed historically a lack of children was a valid reason to annul a marriage. DOn't forget historically life wasn't gaks and giggles. You grew up young, got married young, and died young.
As noted I agree this argument is outdated, but I made it as at one point it was a valid argument.

But not any more. It's a way for people to try to excuse bigotry now.

Religious reason has the original tenets developed because of anti-gay bigotry.

Objection your honor, argument without supporting evidence.
Sustained.

Considering that they ignore other parts and pick and choose the stuff that it anti-gay...It's anti-gay bigotry that led to the developing of those tenets. There was no good reason to put it in if it wasn't anti-gay bigotry. It may not be the person themselves...It may be whomever is interpreting and saying what is most important about the religion to the person.

Thus claiming religious reason IS rooted in bigotry especially when you try to force it on someone else.

However the OP was not noted as trying to force it onto someone else but in response to a question.

Being anti-gay marriage you ARE trying to force your opinion on someone else unless your only opinion is that you yourself shouldn't marry someone of the same sex.

I find it impossible to believe that someone using those excuses isn't looking for a way to try to make bigotry acceptable

Because you are bigoted against them. Your posting history denotes a hostility towards religion. It would be a bit of personal growth if you reflected on that, and how you could move beyond it.

I don't have a hostility to religion. I have my own religion. I just have a problem with people that expect someone else to follow the rules of their religion. I'm anti-whackjob, not anti-religious.

"I'm intimidated by the fact some dudes like putting penises in their orifices"

On the question of why so many take the issue personally... because it actually affects their lives, or the lives of people they love.

There's a weird idea out there that because to one person an issue is abstract political or religious concept, then everyone else should treat it in the same distanced manner. That somehow the other person is wrong for treating the issue as personal, even though it deals with something as personal as their ability to get married.

My sister got in to a doozy of an argument a while back. She was of the opinion that we should keep benefits down, to save money and encourage people to work. A friend of my wife happened to disagree with her, and something of a fight ensued. I think my sister gave a really good argument on the facts, and had the better argument on the whole. But my sister was wrong in dismissing the other lady's emotional approach to the issue. For my sister it was an abstract issue, fiscal politics, for this other lady, who was on benefits, it was a case of how she might pay next month's rent.

I don't know if we should be too quick to call people bigots when they oppose gay marriage. But at the same time, we are making a mistake if we reduce this down to 'everyone has an opinion', because to gay people there are real consequences to whether gay marriage is allowed or not. There is nothing wrong with taking it personally when someone is trying to deny you the chance to marry the person you love.

I do not believe in X can mean I find X socially/morally objectionable and would not recommend it.

I don't believe in being rude to waiting staff or cashiers.
I don't believe in throwing pearls before swine.
I don't believe in sex before marriage.
I don't believe in leaving men behind.
I don't believe in corporal punishment.

Its a personal opinion or belief that something is not positive rather than a refusal to believe that something exists.

^ This, and the meaning is so common in the context that the speaker can be assumed to specify if it is not what he means.

 Manchu wrote:
At the same time, I have no problem with a government recognizing same-sex couples as being married for the usual non-religious purposes which governments recognize marriage.

Rare as this may sound, I'm completely on board with what Manchu is saying here.

*takes cold shower*

The requirement that gay couples have the same recognition and protections under the law (in the US) is an absolute imperative. It's one of those examples you can point to when you say "Name one right I have that you don't have!". The protections that come through the law through being in a "union" is something that everyone should be able to enjoy.

"Marriage", on the other hand, is a different thing.

This is actually one of the things that pisses me off so much about the pro-gay marriage groups in Australia. They think that the US and Oz are the same, when we have the robust de facto laws that the US lacks (and sorely needs).

 Manchu wrote:
@OP

Your co-worker could mean that his view of marriage entails a religious dimension transcendent of what any given civil authority recognizes as valid. That is what I mean when I say, "I don't believe in gay marriage." (Catholic here.) At the same time, I have no problem with a government recognizing same-sex couples as being married for the usual non-religious purposes which governments recognize marriage.

Manchu wins the thread for using the term "transcendent."


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 H.B.M.C. wrote:

 Manchu wrote:
At the same time, I have no problem with a government recognizing same-sex couples as being married for the usual non-religious purposes which governments recognize marriage.

Rare as this may sound, I'm completely on board with what Manchu is saying here.

*takes cold shower*

The requirement that gay couples have the same recognition and protections under the law (in the US) is an absolute imperative. It's one of those examples you can point to when you say "Name one right I have that you don't have!". The protections that come through the law through being in a "union" is something that everyone should be able to enjoy.

"Marriage", on the other hand, is a different thing.

This is actually one of the things that pisses me off so much about the pro-gay marriage groups in Australia. They think that the US and Oz are the same, when we have the robust de facto laws that the US lacks (and sorely needs).

Homosexual marriage is now legal in the US. Not sure what you are saying here.

 Breotan wrote:

 redleger wrote:
"I do not believe in gay marriage"

How would you interpret that?

There are some broad possibilities. It could mean he views marriage as a religious affair and his religion does not condone homosexuality. It could mean he views marriage as a social construct for producing children and raising families, adoption being a separate issue from marriage. It could also mean he views marriage as an institution going back some six thousand years or more that has previously been reserved for a man and a woman (not addressing polygamy here) and he sees no reason for it to be changed. Or he could have some other reason.

My question is, why are you so upset about his beliefs?

I am not upset at his beliefs. I was upset at his denial that that is a bit of a bigoted thing to say in this day and age. We are in the U.S. Army and work together as instructors. We see all forms of Soldier pass through here on a daily basis, and to have an opinion such as this, could be detrimental to his ability to treat each Soldier the same and train them to the highest standard. As we are allowing females in our MOS now, where is the line drawn. It all stemmed from equal opportunity training, and a discussion in the vehicle on the way back to work after said training.

My daughter is most likely in the closet, even though she has not come out, to hear people would still place their views on others inflames me a bit, however I was not upset at his beliefs as much as my understanding of his statement as it seemed he meant it.

BTW Next month is LGBT awareness month!

 Peregrine wrote:

 oldravenman3025 wrote:
The only reason for it is to generate revenue from marriage licenses.

No, the reason for it is that it saves most people a lot of time and money on making their own version of a marriage contract when all they really need is the same standard contract that everyone else has. The only people who benefit from abolishing government-recognized marriage are lawyers.

Actually the government got into the marriage business because the christians of the day argued for it to stop interracial marriages. #themoreyouknow

 redleger wrote:
BTW Next month is LGBT awareness month!

According to whom? I'm sure it was in the Fall...

Simply means he doesn't approve of gay marriage.

Depending on his age, though, it may be helpful to take a step back and look at the history of gay marriage. Even 10 or 20 years ago, it was illegal in many, if not most, states.

Hell, don't ask don't tell was repealed in 2011. That means that until only 5 years ago, if you admitted you were a homosexual in the U.S. military, you could be fired.

Gay rights has come a long way in a very, VERY short time, and many people, you know, haven't moved along with the times, in the same way that they don't like, say, new movies, music, or are unfamiliar with new technology.

Some may have deep-seated religious reservations against gay rights - I'm not a churchgoer, but I'm fairly certain that a majority of churches in the country, especially the south, are still very much anti gay rights.

But if he's a religious dude in this 50s or older - yeah, it's not surprising he doesn't approve of gay marriage. In the world he grew up in and is most familiar with, homosexuality was abhorrent.

And just because he doesn't believe in gay marriage doesn't mean he's a member of the westboro Baptist church, or road-hauls homosexuals in his truck until they're nothing but a pelvis wearing a belt.

It's simply what he was raised to believe in, and what he continues to. And changing that is a difficult thing.

Food for thought: In the 60s, black rights was the big social struggle. Today, gay rights is the big social struggle. Makes you wonder what big social struggle will be going on in 30-40 years (because you know society is always struggling with something), and whether or not you'll be open-minded enough to accept it.

 Kap'n Krump wrote:

Food for thought: In the 60s, black rights was the big social struggle. Today, gay rights is the big social struggle. Makes you wonder what big social struggle will be going on in 30-40 years (because you know society is always struggling with something), and whether or not you'll be open-minded enough to accept it.

Robot rights, equality and marriage