I understand your point, but I guess I just don't have any interest in coddling their bigotry by calling it something different. I'll fight a few more years to call it what it is.

Except that they are not receiving the same rights. If they were, you might have a point, but since they are not, your whole argument is irrelevant.

How is disagreeing bigoted? There's nothing wrong with conflict in a republic- the whole political system depends on it. Otherwise you might as well just have an authoritarian government.

Sometimes what appears to be a compromise really isn't a compromise. Like if one side wants to kill kittens and the other side doesn't, killing half of the kittens isn't really a compromise.

Earlier you said
But I think that this definition is incomplete. Disagreeing is not being bigoted. A better definition would make a distinction between disagreeing in your mind and taking action such as violence or segregation based on whatever is not tolerated.

So on one side you have those who want to take government out of marriage(remove obstacles for gays to marry), and on the other side, you have those who want a bigger government(the government puts up obstacles to marriage for some). By any good definition of bigot, it would seem that not both sides are bigoted, but only the side that is trying to make an intolerant law.

Isn't it ironic that conservatives actually love big government in this issue?

All I can say to everyone who is up in arms is Why?Because...I have attacked your "beliefs". Despite the fact that I mention a compromise people feel attacked and get emotional, fight with their emotions. What do you think is happening on the other side?

Both sides need to be open to communicate, and although I agree that the religious side is being particularly stubborn in this situation that is how they have been raised. The way the solution is being brought forth makes it sound like you want to take something from them rather than get equal rights. Now again this is not all the pro same sex marriage but also the few against it who word things in their adds attacking it.

To those trying to get this passed, first you need to approach the situation in a manner that isn't an offensive but a compromise. In this world today our first reaction is to scream out BLOODY MURDER and attack anyone who doesn't stand with us. Again this is true for both sides but the only way to have this resolved is open dialogue.

Read my previous comment. I already tackled this issue.

I have offered a solution and part of the stipulation was that both sides were given the exact same rights

I don't think this comment is really relevant under the statements I have made. Again way off base


The quote does not state that is is just disagreeing but utterly intolerant and it is the actual definition of bigot. Not just not agreeing with someone

They are not attempting to take government out of marriage they are attempting to have the laws rewritten to allow for same sex marriage, something that should never really have been an issue but because of those in power and beliefs when they were written included the typical church marriage.

srsmits, I still don't see how you're not realizing how unnecessary it is to call it anything but marriage. It's ridiculous and is only scraping and bowing to these people who have such strong religious convictions or "conservative" ideas that are NEGATIVELY impacting other people's lives! You keep saying, well, these liberal ideas of marriage are harming the conservative beliefs in the same way! but seriously, the two aren't even comparable.
I'm "up in arms" because it's stupid. Period. Would you go ahead and give another name to all the other kinds of marriages as well? You conveniently skipped over that part of my last comment. Where do you draw the line? There is *no need* to deny these people's union it's own feeling and sense of validity by saying, "well, hmph, you'll get the same rights on paper, but we're not going to call your union what we call *our* union. *We* have the *real* kind of marriage, and you've got that *other* kind. Be happy you even got that!" Come on.

And Marli if I am asked to vote it will still be in favor, but until some of the people get off the fence (or more likely some of the die hard churchies slowly pass) I just think there could be a better solution to get the rights now

Again an Emotional statement, you too are ignoring many facts I have stated throughout the post. Or I could be wrong maybe you just didn;t read them. But if the goal is to get the rights today then something has to be changed, the results on the poll show this.

I have stated here time and time again its a means to an end. A way to get the rights they deserve today and continue to work to resolve to bigger issue as people realize that this is something stupid to fight over. But you know what...that 98 year old lady who isnt likely to have her mind changed...but when we change the word and combine the law down the road she wont be there to stand up and fight and there will be more open minded people (i sure hope anyway)

But there is no such solution out there right now. Like I said earlier, if there was such a solution under consideration, you would have a point, but since there isn't any sort of law to that effect, having that sort of law as an underlying assumption in your argument renders it irrelevant.

You failed to differentiate between disagreeing and being 'utterly intolerant'. What do you mean by 'utterly intolerant' anyway? It sounds like any disagreement could be claimed to be 'utter intolerance'. So a definition which makes a distinction between disagreement and active interference is still necessary. Stubborn isn't bigoted.

But in effect, that is taking the government out of marriage as it pertains to this issue. The opponents of gay marriage are the ones who want the government to interfere with marriage as it pertains to this issue, and this active interference is what makes them bigoted. They can think whatever they want, nobody cares about that, but public policy cannot have this unequal interference.

Well, maybe you're choosing to ignore history and all the facts that people have brought up that "separate but equal" just.doesn't.work.
I'll go with Marli and wait it out until that 98 year old biddy kicks the bucket anyway, and get the rights as an all or nothing, I guess. It seems stupid, not to mention inefficient and a waste of time, effort and money campaigning for both sides, to call it something else for a few years, wait for the inevitable law suits about violating civil rights, more arguments over the wording of the laws, and then FINALLY ending up at calling it the same thing.

Neither he nor anyone else is ignoring what you are saying, but you are ignoring the fact that your whole case is based on the premise that same-sex couples would have the same rights even without marriage, but this is not the case.

Well, the article makes it look like it wasn't old people in Maine. It seems to have been parents who are concerned that their children would be taught homosexuality in school if gay marriage was legalized. This is disturbing and I don't think that demographic changes would change this situation. I mean, the vote wasn't even about teaching something in schools, it was about marriage.

Zebulor I have offered a compromise, you can call it irrelevant because it doesn't currently exist, but at least I am offering an opportunity to start moving in the right direction.

You can dispute the definition of Bigot, that is what is written in the dictionary so if you want to define "utterly intolerant" that would be my suggestion. If you disagree with their definition then I'm sure they have someone you can contact. You yourself are using the word within here so if you have a better definition please feel free to share.

I don't know what more I can tell you other than you can see where this stance has ended at the poles. Adjusting your platform is one way to resolve this issue sooner rather than later.

Politicians do not have the spines to stand in and force something like this through, they don't want to lose votes over it.

You say that everyone on the other side is a bigot but again these are their beliefs that have been implanted in them since they were children, they were asked if they wanted a particular bill to pass, it was against their beliefs so they voted.

Are they correct...no, but you have to take the time to educate the people not just call them bigots and curse and swear. Again this is just my opinion on how this situation looks to me

As long as people will wait that is always an option. Just remember that until that time the people of same sex marriages will be the ones suffering, paying additional taxes...etc so to me it makes sense to get something started now

Write your Congressman?

Because I bet those opposed to it would be opposed to "separate but equal" too. But good luck with that.

I don't have to worry about that Lynx I already live in a place where same sex marriages are legal.. :P

Well, good.

I just don't know what you want from us. You seem to be the one getting upset when people are showing the flaws in your argument. You call everyone bigots.

What do you want, us all to acknowledge you've got it right and we were all fools all along?

But you are using a nonexistent compromise to attack a real law.

Which dictionary did you find it in? It is an ok definition under normal circumstances, but it is useless as an operational definition here.

However:

" a person obstinately or intolerantly devoted to his or her own opinions and prejudices; especially : one who regards or treats the members of a group (as a racial or ethnic group) with hatred and intolerance"


I think that the bold part is really what is relevant here, it is what makes this definition more applicable to this situation.

Yeah, it would be so if the law would allow the same rights for these same sex unions as they do for marriage. However, they don't, and until a law to this effect is introduced, this position is irrelevant. However, I don't think that introducing that would be any easier right now because then the social conservatives would make loud noises about how the law would allow living in sin and such, and the same thing would happen.

But what you aren't taking into consideration is that I don't think that the other side is bigoted because of their beliefs. They are free to believe what they want, I'm not trying to change them, and nobody is forcing them to act against it. However, they are producing an interference against a minority which is undemocratic and which they are not justifying in terms of equal protection. It is this interference which makes them fit my preferred definition of bigot, not their opinions.

Nobody is swearing or cursing. Nobody is denying them their rights. It is not about opinions, it is about a policy.

Wait just a minute there, I said long ago that I was just playing devils advocate here. I did not call everyone bigots I was not the first one to use the term bigot I just said that because people vote one way or another does not make them a bigot.

All I want you to acknowledge is that maybe there is another way to tackle this problem. Being judgmental is something both sides have been guilty of. If you want to succeed you have to ensure everyone is educated.

I think he is making a well reasoned point. Incremental change often comes before monumental change. Why not continually win the small battles and the compromises until one day, we have won the war? An all or nothing hurts us as much as them.


Inequality--> Partial Rights --> Equality.

Why not try for total equality, but be willing to accept a s**tty compromise when we cant get what we want. It will make getting our way that much closer next time.

Change comes in excruciating increments to those who want it.

Legitimacy