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.

 Kap'n Krump wrote:
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Hell, don't ask don't tell was repealed in 2011.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.

Truth is until I had my "awakening" in the desert during an offensive in 2004 I had many deep seated beliefs that had roots in Christianity. After I shed the chains of religion and began a long and arduous task of self reflection, I realized that when religion was no longer and excuse, I no longer had an excuse to feel the way I did. It was not until my daughter started getting on me for some of the colorful language I would use that I realized I still had that baggage. I have since then tried to spread the good word of critical thinking and introspection.

When I hear certain things from Soldiers, knowing how the majority of us are, I know what they mean, whether they know what they mean. Back peddling on a statement doesn't make it non bigoted. The old Impact vs Intent argument takes hold.

 H.B.M.C. wrote:
Rare as this may sound, I'm completely on board with what Manchu is saying here.

*takes cold shower*

LOL - no shower is cold enough.

 redleger wrote:
When I hear certain things from Soldiers, knowing how the majority of us are, I know what they mean, whether they know what they mean.

Then ... what was the point of this thread?

"I think critically and don't just assume things."

"I already know what this guy thinks even if he doesn't."

Maybe give that one another try?

 Manchu wrote:

 H.B.M.C. wrote:
Rare as this may sound, I'm completely on board with what Manchu is saying here.

*takes cold shower*

LOL - no shower is cold enough.

 redleger wrote:
When I hear certain things from Soldiers, knowing how the majority of us are, I know what they mean, whether they know what they mean.

Then ... what was the point of this thread?

"I think critically and don't just assume things."

"I already know what this guy thinks even if he doesn't."

Maybe give that one another try?

The point of this thread was honestly to see if I was totally out in left field for hearing his sentence and thinking what seems to be a concensus, " I do not believe in gay marriage" when what I interpreted from that was "I oppose gay marriage" He is not in any position to push an agenda that affects anyone. None of us are, we are merely servants. But when he turned and said, that is not a bigoted, prejudiced statement, and then tried to explain why that statement was not, even after he did admit he was opposed to gay marriage, I thought maybe I was losing my mind. I know the OT thread can get quite flamey, and there are many many points of view here. It is very representative of a large population in a small subset.

That being said, there have been many views here, many good points and I have learned a lot about perception from reading this thread. I do understand you can disagree with something and not be prejudiced but saying you oppose something is pretty much a prejudiced thing to say.

I do not believe fat people should be Soldiers. If you wear the uniform, and are fat, you receive a fair amount of prejudice. the statement in and of itself is anti fat person. (this was just an example.)

 redleger wrote:
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.

<snip>

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...

Ah, I think we're finally at the nut of the problem. Your co-worker has a set of values/beliefs that are at variance with your own. You apparently do not accept these values as valid given your own life experiences, therefore you project negative qualities onto your co-worker such as concerns about his ability to do his job properly despite lacking any factual evidence supporting such conclusions. You are intolerance of his beliefs and need to justify your own feelings (and correct this dissonance) so you project onto him, calling him a bigot. You made this thread wanting to understand your co-worker's position but I think you were actually looking for peer support of your own reasoning. It seems you were hoping for a majority of us to say, "You co-worker has no reasonable or defensible excuse for holding such opinions."

You have an adversarial point of view with your co-worker. People fall into that type of trap all the time. Politics, economic theory, religion, even with subjects like which game company has the best miniatures seem to encourage adversarial points of view. None of that makes anyone a bigot or a bad person or even wrong but it seems we forget that sometimes. I hope eventually you'll discover that people aren't necessarily bigots just because they hold beliefs that are in opposition to your own.

 redleger wrote:
saying you oppose something is pretty much a prejudiced thing to say

Not meaningfully, no. It is perfectly possible to be opposed to the notion of "gay marriage" without having any hateful feelings toward gay people. The kind of black and white thinking that says otherwise is what lobbyists try to sell: "unless you agree with me, you are a bigot." So much of political discourse these days is outright bullying and this is a good example.

 Breotan wrote:

 redleger wrote:
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.

<snip>

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...

Ah, I think we're finally at the nut of the problem. Your co-worker has a set of values/beliefs that are at variance with your own. You apparently do not accept these values as valid given your own life experiences, therefore you project negative qualities onto your co-worker such as concerns about his ability to do his job properly despite lacking any factual evidence supporting such conclusions. You are intolerance of his beliefs and need to justify your own feelings (and correct this dissonance) so you project onto him, calling him a bigot. You made this thread wanting to understand your co-worker's position but I think you were actually looking for peer support of your own reasoning. It seems you were hoping for a majority of us to say, "You co-worker has no reasonable or defensible excuse for holding such opinions."

You have an adversarial point of view with your co-worker. People fall into that type of trap all the time. Politics, economic theory, religion, even with subjects like which game company has the best miniatures seem to encourage adversarial points of view. None of that makes anyone a bigot or a bad person or even wrong but it seems we forget that sometimes. I hope eventually you'll discover that people aren't necessarily bigots just because they hold beliefs that are in opposition to your own.

Honestly no, I do not need anyone too "co-sign" on my feelings. It is exactly as I said, how would you interpret this statement. I do not care if he thinks its ok, but in our job, speaking of how we personally feel is considered a big no-no when it comes to any form of equal opportunity treatment. You can feel how ever you want, being verbal about it is, however not ok. To make that statement, and then defend it in the same breath you just said you do oppose it is not ok. I am not hurt about that though, I left my feelings in Hazarbus valley many years ago. But as I said, I have seen a good bit of back and forth and am seeing different points of view. But I think the statement itself, as seen with this context, by a reasonable person could be interpreted as being in opposition.




Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Manchu wrote:

 redleger wrote:
saying you oppose something is pretty much a prejudiced thing to say

Not meaningfully, no. It is perfectly possible to be opposed to the notion of "gay marriage" without having any hateful feelings toward gay people. The kind of black and white thinking that says otherwise is what lobbyists try to sell: "unless you agree with me, you are a bigot." So much of political discourse these days is outright bullying and this is a good example.

You may be true. I live in a black or white world. Sometimes maybe it affects my way of thinking. 10 more months I have to learn to live in the real world again. Atleast I have people here that speak how it is.

 Breotan wrote:

 redleger wrote:
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.

<snip>

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...

Ah, I think we're finally at the nut of the problem. Your co-worker has a set of values/beliefs that are at variance with your own. You apparently do not accept these values as valid given your own life experiences, therefore you project negative qualities onto your co-worker such as concerns about his ability to do his job properly despite lacking any factual evidence supporting such conclusions. You are intolerance of his beliefs and need to justify your own feelings (and correct this dissonance) so you project onto him, calling him a bigot. You made this thread wanting to understand your co-worker's position but I think you were actually looking for peer support of your own reasoning. It seems you were hoping for a majority of us to say, "You co-worker has no reasonable or defensible excuse for holding such opinions."

You have an adversarial point of view with your co-worker. People fall into that type of trap all the time. Politics, economic theory, religion, even with subjects like which game company has the best miniatures seem to encourage adversarial points of view. None of that makes anyone a bigot or a bad person or even wrong but it seems we forget that sometimes. I hope eventually you'll discover that people aren't necessarily bigots just because they hold beliefs that are in opposition to your own.

Its just this sort of reasoned, calm, conciliatory post that has no place on the internet! For shame!

"I don't believe in gay marriage" to me means that someone doesn't think gay marriage really exists.

But depending on the context, I could also read it as: "It is my opinion that gay marriage would not be a good thing".

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.

Yes that is funny. People calling others "bigots" are inherently hypocrites, for calling people "bigots" based on their beliefs or opinions is bigoted. In the end, all people are bigoted against something or another. That is inherent to human nature. And that is one more reason why calling people "bigots" is a really, really bad idea. Not only is it meaningless and hypocritical (and I suspect most people only do it to make themselves look better), but it creates hostility and leads to conflict, and prevents any possibility for meaningful, constructive dialogue. A good person would leave the casting of stones to those without sin, as someone very wise once reminded us.

Ya what I got from this topic and most.

Topic creators: I have this point of view.
Posters vary agree or disagree
TC gets annoyed and wants to give more and more info to recieve agreeance on his point of view.

Long story short most people do not want to understand a differnt point of view when they say lets talk about this, but confirmation on their own view.

Btw I do not believe in gay marriage.
But with that said if two people" adults" want to commit to each other they should reciece all the benifits and cons of said relationship. Kinda like what the hell is it called... Where you live with someone for several years and become common spouce? I say gay straight what ever you want to commit to each other then good for ya hope you are happy. And you should get all the same benifits.

But I was taught that marriage is alot less about a man and a woman and more about helping protecting children from....problems in a relationship between people. Like back in the day a woman couldnt work so if she got married and had kids, if she was married she still got some of his money for the safety of the kids. But I will add this becauspeople asked gays can addopt great nice good for them. They should be allowed to be addopted by the couple no matter the gender.

I just see marriage of promising to make kids with each other and make them safe.

I think there is a nice middle ground that can be met here. I think I got it gays recieve all the same benifits but use a different word for their agreement to commit to each other. Then both side can go bug off lol. I do not think anyone is saying that if your gay and in pain your loved one cant be with you til the end. No matter what they are packimg in their pants

"Gay marriage is not for me", is not in and of itself a bigoted statement.

"Gay marriage is not for me, nor should it be for anyone else", is a bigoted statement.

 redleger wrote:
You may be true. I live in a black or white world. Sometimes maybe it affects my way of thinking. 10 more months I have to learn to live in the real world again. Atleast I have people here that speak how it is.

Just be suspicious of anyone who tells you it is either this way or that, I guess, when it comes to such complex issues.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 feeder wrote:
"Gay marriage is not for me, nor should it be for anyone else", is a bigoted statement.

Not necessarily, just the same as how opposing a certain kind of health care scheme, although it certainly affects more people than just the person opposed, doesn't necessarily have anything to do with hatefulness.

I had a friend saying "I don't believe in women's rights". Wonder what that means.

 Manchu wrote:

 redleger wrote:
You may be true. I live in a black or white world. Sometimes maybe it affects my way of thinking. 10 more months I have to learn to live in the real world again. Atleast I have people here that speak how it is.

Just be suspicious of anyone who tells you it is either this way or that, I guess, when it comes to such complex issues.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 feeder wrote:
"Gay marriage is not for me, nor should it be for anyone else", is a bigoted statement.

Not necessarily, just the same as how opposing a certain kind of health care scheme, although it certainly affects more people than just the person opposed, doesn't necessarily have anything to do with hatefulness.

I actually think there is a bit of hate in that last sentence. Who are you to tell someone it isn't for them. Sounds kind of hateful to me. Although this is not what I believe the OP was trying to say, although I realized I interpreted it that way. But if he had straight up said, gay people do not have a right to marry each other, then I would have a problem with him. Just how I feel about it. I do have the right to disassociate myself with him and he with me. I would just not invite him to my house anymore, cause my daughter would not need to hear that kind of thing. I can't protect her forever, but I can while she's under my roof.

Baxx wrote:
I had a friend saying "I don't believe in women's rights". Wonder what that means.

You could probably ask him. Or you could come onto a message board and complain about it. Wonder what you motives are? Well, let me just ask.

 redleger wrote:
I actually think there is a bit of hate in that last sentence.

And I think you are bound to find whatever you are are determined to, whether it's there or not.

 redleger wrote:
Who are you to tell someone it isn't for them.

In a democratic society? Just another one of the people, with just as much right to support or oppose the creation or expansion of a civil institution as any other member of the society. That's who. But there are broader implications, of course. Some people don't think that any old concept can be voted into reality, sort of an Emperor's New Clothes situation. Now me personally, I realize we are talking about the positive law here - and that means it is certainly possible to create certain legal rights for people of the same sex who enter into a certain legal relationship.

 redleger wrote:
I do have the right to disassociate myself with him and he with me.

Well sure but so what?

 Manchu wrote:

Baxx wrote:
I had a friend saying "I don't believe in women's rights". Wonder what that means.

You could probably ask him. Or you could come onto a message board and complain about it. Wonder what you motives are? Well, let me just ask.

 redleger wrote:
I actually think there is a bit of hate in that last sentence.

And I think you are bound to find whatever you are are determined to, whether it's there or not.

 redleger wrote:
Who are you to tell someone it isn't for them.

In a democratic society? Just another one of the people, with just as much right to support or oppose the creation or expansion of a civil institution as any other member of the society. That's who. But there are broader implications, of course. Some people don't think that any old concept can be voted into reality, sort of an Emperor's New Clothes situation. Now me personally, I realize we are talking about the positive law here - and that means it is certainly possible to create certain legal rights for people of the same sex who enter into a certain legal relationship.

 redleger wrote:
I do have the right to disassociate myself with him and he with me.

Well sure but so what?

Sounds like you think I am complaining. I am not. I have things to complain about, but I just don't. I figured I would see conversation, different takes on the sentence, and then help myself form an opinion on whether I was correct to interpret his sentence in that way. couldn't ask others here at work, or that could have ended badly. This is semi-anonymous after all. I have learned a bit, and with the benefit of a nights rest, have decided it wasn't as malicious, in his context as I initially took it. Although starting to seem like there is hate in your heart, just a little bit anyway.

 redleger wrote:
Although starting to seem like there is hate in your heart, just a little bit anyway.

Well I reckon there might be a mote in my eye, if you understand the saying.

The beam might be in yours.

Depends on who you ask.

 MrDwhitey wrote:
Depends on who you ask.

The point being, it's not a very useful line of conversation. Or rather, it is useful if all you want is to lord it over others - as I mentioned about the kind of rhetoric lobbyists use - rather than have a dialogue.

 Manchu wrote:
Not necessarily, just the same as how opposing a certain kind of health care scheme, although it certainly affects more people than just the person opposed, doesn't necessarily have anything to do with hatefulness.

Prejudice is not an antonym for hate, not are either antonyms for bigot, though the modern realities of PC, and counter PC, in our culture have done a wonderful job of dumbing it all down so the masses can throw the words are one another. One can oppose Gay marriage without being prejudiced, and one can be pejudiced without being bigoted. Someone who thinks "gays are sexual deviants degrading the moral fabric of society," but decides to simply live and let live is prejudiced, but not bigoted. Someone who says "gay marriage is wrong, and the government should ban it" is bigoted, but not necessarily prejudiced.

At the end of the day, you still have the reality that both positions are hateful, but at least the former isn't actively screwing anyone over so I suppose on the sliding scale that opinion comes out ahead. Gay marriage isn't like welfare, or health care schemes. It's not a complex system in which someone can take a side effect of the outcome, notice it disproportionately effects urban African American communities, and claim racism. Gay marriage is a very straight forward and simple thing, and there's a lot less room for someone to stand saying they "oppose it" but "don't hate homosexuals."

@LoH

I think this textual medium has a tendency to equivocation. The reason I use the concept of hatefulness is because I want to talk about something meaningful, something that might actually express itself in meat space rather than just be spun out into a n increasingly ethereal strand of rhetoric here in the digital void; in short, a rather blank notion like prejudice or a playground insult like bigot. There is plenty of room between opposing gay marriage and hating gay people - but there is tremendous political pressure to close that rhetorical gap. To the extent that someone buys into that line, I think it's a crying shame not least because it seems to be motivated by the thirst for self-righteousness.

 Manchu wrote:

 feeder wrote:
"Gay marriage is not for me, nor should it be for anyone else", is a bigoted statement.

Not necessarily, just the same as how opposing a certain kind of health care scheme, although it certainly affects more people than just the person opposed, doesn't necessarily have anything to do with hatefulness.

I suppose you are correct, but what health care scheme is in place for a country affects everyone in that country, whereas gay marriage only effects those parties getting gay married.

Perhaps a better re-wording of my statement would be

"Collecting a Dwarf team is not for me" vs

"Collecting a Dwarf team is not for me, nor should it be for anyone else."

I admit I am bigoted against Dwarf teams.

 feeder wrote:
whereas gay marriage only effects those parties getting gay married

If that were true, there would be no point in all the time and effort that folks have put into creating gay marriage. We're not just talking about a private relationship here (where "we don't need no piece of paper" as Joni Mitchell said). This is a public, legal institution, and therefore does affect parties beyond the spouses. Indeed, that is the point - not that you would know it from the sloganeering (on both sides).

To continue your metaphor, it's more like -

"Hey I want to collect a Cylon team."

"But Cylons aren't in Warhammer."

"Well add 'em."

"How about you use Cylons counts-as?"

"Don't be a bigot."

 Manchu wrote:
I think this textual medium has a tendency to equivocation.

Yeah, but it's also all we really got. We're not a telepathic species (yet... )

There is plenty of room between opposing gay marriage and hating gay people

Forgive me, but for pointing out that textual mediums have a tendency for equivocation, you're doing a very good job of building a middle ground that seems to beg existence on the sole basis of semantics. That people throw the words bigot and prejudice around like candy in a Hershey factory, isn't close to the notions being blank with no meaning in the physical. Just that people use them in a way that makes little sense. There's certainly a discussion to be had there, and how modern politics have reduced rhetoric into a child's game. That's neither here nor there though. I'm not seeing the meaningfulness in it as it pertains to this discussion, or how pointing out that rhetoric has been reduced into a child's game produced this ground for people to stand you claim exists.

A meaningful discussion might actually address the kinds of reasoning that people develop in opposing gay marriage, and whether or not those reasoning constitute any of these words people like throwing around. Your current logic feels a lot more like indignation at the current state of political discourse than anything having to do with meat space.

I think your earlier posts in thread, and D-USA's, are great examples of how people aren't as simple as politics tries to make them seem. Dumbing down rhetoric doesn't exist just on the internet. It exists everywhere, and is always present. There are gay Christians, and I think they might have a bone to pick with the notion that they can't participate in a Biblical covenant between God and themselves. That might exist outside the realm of civil authority, but it's not a realm that is somehow inherently immune to charges of mean sounding words no one wants to be called.

@LoH

It's hard to take your criticism seriously since it's just as applicable to your own claims ("beg [non]existence on the sole basis of semantics"). We could continue with a tit-for-tat as if I have made no other posts giving context to this tangent ... but I don't really want to and won't.

 Manchu wrote:
It is perfectly possible to be opposed to the notion of "gay marriage" without having any hateful feelings toward gay people.

Not really. It's possible to lie (even to yourself) and say that your hateful feelings aren't hateful, but it's still hate.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

OgreChubbs wrote:
I just see marriage of promising to make kids with each other and make them safe.

And gay couples can have kids, therefore they should be married. Your argument against gay marriage fails.

I think there is a nice middle ground that can be met here. I think I got it gays recieve all the same benifits but use a different word for their agreement to commit to each other.

There is a middle ground, but there is no reason to take it. I see no reason at all to care about the feelings of the poor bigots who don't like gay couples using "their" term for marriage, just like I wouldn't see any reason to take the middle ground with the KKK and invent a new term for interracial marriage.

 Manchu wrote:
It's hard to take your criticism seriously since it's just as applicable to your own claims ("beg [non]existence on the sole basis of semantics").

An ostentatious house of cards built on dismissing words because they are overused equivocally is simply building a gray fallacy. Talking about motes in thy brother's eye in this discussion seems a disingenuous attempt to build a position that cannot be questioned by barring from discussion relevant concepts. It's a vain attempt to force all discussion down a single narrow path in a hypocritical turn around of the kind of rhetoric you find distasteful. One where you can knock any attempt to point out that the house of cards is a house of cards as "self-righteousness." Pointing that out isn't tit-for-tat, and if your other posts in thread actually addressed the issue I wouldn't bother pointing it out.

sirlynchmob wrote:

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

'The government' was in the marriage business before the Christian church existed.

@LoH

You're not asking a question, you are offering (really forcing) a false dilemma. And you're not the only one.

 Manchu wrote:

 feeder wrote:
whereas gay marriage only effects those parties getting gay married

If that were true, there would be no point in all the time and effort that folks have put into creating gay marriage. We're not just talking about a private relationship here (where "we don't need no piece of paper" as Joni Mitchell said). This is a public, legal institution, and therefore does affect parties beyond the spouses. Indeed, that is the point - not that you would know it from the sloganeering (on both sides).

To continue your metaphor, it's more like -

"Hey I want to collect a Cylon team."

"But Cylons aren't in Warhammer."

"Well add 'em."

"How about you use Cylons counts-as?"

"Don't be a bigot."

Your metaphore doesn't work, feeder had it right.

People wanted to get married, the government told them no based on some arbitrary reason. They might as well just pushed that people who drink pepsi can't marry other people who drink pepsi because no one in the bible drank pepsi. so the pepsi drinkers put a lot of time and effort to get married, just married, 2 men get married, not gay married.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 insaniak wrote:

sirlynchmob wrote:

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

'The government' was in the marriage business before the Christian church existed.

yes, but the marriage license in the US only came about because those fighting against the civil rights movement didn't want interracial couples to marry.

And to continue the other point, they didn't create "interracial marriage" they just got the government and "those people" to stop fighting against their rights to get married.

OgreChubbs wrote:
Like back in the day a woman couldnt work so if she got married and had kids, if she was married she still got some of his money for the safety of the kids.

So... Not really applicable to modern Western society, then?


Just calling it something else isn't the solution. It puts us back in 'black people sit in the back of the bus' territory. I mean, they shouldn't have any reason to complain... The seats are the same as those up the front, right?


Why does your personal definition of marriage automatically get exclusive use of the word?