(July 4, 2015 at 5:50 am)Dystopia Wrote: Quote:Do you think that someone who is against interracial marriage is a bigot? And is so against it that they wish for it to be illegal?
This may be of help; here is the definition of "bigot":
You are assuming being against something means you think it must be illegal.
No, I am not assuming that. In the specific instance of the topic of this thread, the people are upset because gay marriage is no longer illegal in the U.S., which means they want gay marriage to be illegal. So it is not an assumption; it is a fact to which I am reacting.
If someone does not want a gay marriage (and I am one of those people), that does not make the person a bigot. Others may do as they please, as far as I am concerned. I favor having same-sex marriage legal, even though I do not want a same-sex marriage myself. (It has something to do with the fact that I am not gay.) I also don't want black people to be forced to ride in the back of buses, even though I am white. I do not like people being treated badly unless there is a good reason for it (like the person is violent, etc.). As for gay marriage, not only have I voted in favor of it whenever it has been possible for me to do so, I have even donated money for the cause. Had I been an adult in the 1960's, I would have wanted to help with the civil rights for blacks movement. I really don't like people being treated badly unless there is a very good reason for it, like the person is violent and must be locked up for the protection of society. (As an aside, we lock up way too many people in the U.S. for frivolous reasons, but that is a topic for another thread.)
Now, if someone is gay but opposes gay marriage for religious reasons, but does not want to impose his or her religion on others (which means, at least in part, that they do not want their religious preferences to be imposed by law), that, too, is showing tolerance for others. But that is not the sort of person who is whining about the Supreme Court decision on this matter.
(July 4, 2015 at 5:50 am)Dystopia Wrote: I am against heavy drug consumption for the most part because it leads to addiction and tears people's lives apart, but I don't support criminalizing it or anything like that. Is someone against interracial marriage a bigot? Well, it's a tricky question because the majority of opponents to interracial marriage are white nationalist, white supremacist and neo-nazi organizations, not your average local church, so for the most part my answer would be yes. Does this person oppose interracial marriage because they hate other races? Or do they simply think mixing different cultures is a bad idea because it leads to conflicts between different "tribes" and it may not work? Do you know that there are black people who refuse to inter-racially date, specially white people, because they've had bad experiences and the cultural divergences don't allow it? If so, would you label these people as bigots?
Yes, but people should decide for themselves who they will and will not date. One certainly does not have to be white to be a racist.
I would especially consider the person a bigot if they wanted to have their preference enforced by law (which is to say, if they wanted interracial dating/marriage to be illegal). If they don't want that, then there is some tolerance and I don't have too much of a problem with the person.
(July 4, 2015 at 5:50 am)Dystopia Wrote: .... My stepfather is a strong anti-theist, a lawyer and he is against same-sex marriage mostly because he believes legally it is an "unworthy" institution because the legal privileges that exist solely for married people stop making sense - He is very pragmatic and doesn't care that it makes people unhappy (to not be able to marry same sex people), but I wouldn't call him a bigot because he says human rights apply to gays as well.
So your stepfather believes that there is no reason for a gay person to want to have his partner able to make medical decisions for him in the event he is incapacitated? That there is no reason for a gay person to want to be able to visit a very sick partner in the hospital when "family only" is allowed to visit? I'm sorry, but either things work very differently in your country, or your stepfather has not put enough thought into this.
(July 4, 2015 at 5:50 am)Dystopia Wrote: 3 - Some people are simply against marriage - This is the communist proposal - Abolishing marriage as an institution - And naturally those people will be mad with the legalization of gay marriage because they think we are going the wrong way about it - I don't think these people are bigots. In fact, I think you are only a bigot if you're openly and clearly intolerant of diverse ideas
I agree with that. If one is opposed to all marriage, then being opposed to gay marriage does not make one a bigot. But it is that the person is not against gay marriage specifically, but is against all marriage.
However, that does not apply to the topic of this thread, of religious bigots being against same-sex marriage but in favor of opposite-sex marriage.
(July 4, 2015 at 5:50 am)Dystopia Wrote: 4 - Pyrrho, don't we all impose our ideas on society? Just think about it, laws are based on morality (partially at least) - The question is not if all morality will be legislated, but who's morality - Usually the majority's morality (don't kill, don't steal, don't rape, don't beat people to death, etc.) - I never understood this argument that one group are "imposing" their view just because they want something illegal, that's just idiotic - Legal or illegal, decriminalization or legalization, any legislative measure that is approved will inevitably impose something on someone. The fact you are broadening the legal definition of marriage does not mean it's ok because every law approved affects someone, at least indirectly.
All right, I did not word it adequately. I am specifically interested in issues which minimally affect others. If something minimally affects others, then those others should have little say in the matter.
If you kill someone, that very significantly affects the person you kill without that person's consent (at least generally speaking), and so that is a matter of public concern. If you rape someone, that very significantly affects the person you rape without that person's consent, and so that is a matter of public concern.
However, that contrasts greatly with marrying someone of the same sex. It only very significantly affects the person who is married, not the neighbors, and the person so affected is, by definition, giving consent.
The key difference is in the matter of the person most affected giving consent. When one rapes or steals, the victim does not give consent (which is why the word "victim" applies).
As for other people, whether your neighbor is in a same-sex marriage, opposite-sex marriage, or not married, has minimal impact on you, so you should have no say in which of those states he or she is in (unless you are the one marrying him or her). Just like your neighbor should not get to decide who you marry (unless you are marrying each other).
(July 4, 2015 at 5:50 am)Dystopia Wrote: When you approve gay marriage, you are imposing on everyone the viewpoint that gays getting married is valid and acceptable, otherwise it wouldn't be legalized, right?
No. You are free to disapprove of something that is legal. I do not approve of smoking, as it is bad for you. But it is legal, and I think it should be legal. That is, in private. When one is in public, then the issue of the smoke affecting others without their consent comes into play. But I would strongly advise someone not to smoke even in private, as it is unhealthy and will likely result in consequences that the person will not like. It is, however, that person's life, and so I think that person should get to decide about those things that affect themselves but have little affect on others.
(July 4, 2015 at 5:50 am)Dystopia Wrote: The question is not if it's an imposition, but if it's a right imposition - I think it is, just like we impose people the prohibition of murder.
See above for the distinction between someone consenting to being affected versus not consenting, and for the distinction between being significantly affected versus not significantly affected.
(July 4, 2015 at 5:50 am)Dystopia Wrote: 5 - Since you are an American and America has this broader definition of religious freedom I'm curious to know what do you think about religious objections? Usually, freedom of religion means the right to believe and the right to live your life according to what you believe, for as long as you don't disturb public order, peace and reveal classified information or just go out murdering people - So what's your take on it? Do you think religious freedom should be restricted? Why or why not?
I think religious freedom should be restricted only when it significantly affects others. Anything that affects other people significantly without their consent is properly a matter of public concern.
How this applies to the present topic is this: I don't think that a regular church should be required to perform weddings whenever they don't want to do so, for whatever reason. Thus, I would be fine with a Catholic church refusing to marry gay people and divorced people and people who are not Catholics. But I think that secular
marriage officiants should be required to perform weddings without discrimination, and that
wedding chapels, which are essentially businesses rather than churches, should be required to perform weddings without discrimination.
Since these other options are available, churches refusing to marry people does not prevent people from marrying if they wish to do so. And regular churches are not primarily for the purpose of weddings anyway, though weddings often occur in regular churches.
(July 4, 2015 at 5:50 am)Dystopia Wrote: As usual, I enjoy our conversations, keep it going 
Thank you.
