Are all anti-Gay Marriage advocates bigots?

[Joe Biden 2020]

It seems like a lot of gay-marrige proponents accuse all or the vast majority of gay marriage opponents of bigotry.

Why is that?  Does everybody have to be tolerant and accept gay marriage as the exact same thing as traditional opposite sex marriage?

BTW, my vote is No (D) (normal)

[Aizen]

Yes (Normal)

[MaxQue]

Depends of the discourse than they use.

[Holmes]

Only if their argument is that their religious beliefs should be imposed on all other citizens. Otherwise, not really.

eta: It also goes the other way too. Like if there's a bill in a state legislature that allows gay couples to get a civil marriage, but doesn't give religious institutions the freedom to choose whether they could allow or reject these marriages. Really, all bills passed that allow gay couples to have civil marriage affirm religious freedom, otherwise it would make them bigots as well.

[bgwah]

Absolutely.

[Joe Biden 2020]

Mind you, before I get personally attacked, and to reiterate, I am warming to gay marriage myself, so I'm not asking this on behalf of either party nor am I catering to either the conservatives or to the liberals.

[Lief 🗽]

If you don't believe a certain group of people are worthy of the same rights and privileges as every other group of people, then yes, you're a bigot.

[Marokai Backbeat]

Yes (Normal)

[Torie]

No, of course not.

But almost all of the opponents are either 1) religious and/or 2) wholly misguided on this issue (to the extent that they think that the slope down leads ineluctably to the masses wanting to not only F their pet dogs, but marry them, or for heteros to cease getting married even as gays marry, or something along those lines).

[Bleeding heart conservative, HTMLdon]

No (R).

Certainly there are some that are (which is why the traditional marriage side appears to be losing), but I think it is ridiculous to state that supporting marriage as between one man and one woman is - in and of itself - "bigoted".

[Holmes]

Mind you, before I get personally attacked, and to reiterate, I am warming to gay marriage myself, so I'm not asking this on behalf of either party nor am I catering to either the conservatives or to the liberals.

Mmhmm. Well I edited my post but I'll re-say it. Gay marriage is only legal in a civil marriage sense, the kind of marriage that's recognized by the law. Churches have always been allowed to marry a gay couple if it wants to. The other side has been criticized of imposing their religious beliefs, but if the equality side tries to force religious institutions to marry gay couples, they'd be bigots as well, per se. That's why the gay marriage bills that have passed in state legisltures so far have not forced religious institutes to do whatever they don't want to do, and I don't even think I'd support something that forces them to do anything as well.

[Rowan]

No, of course not.

But almost all of the opponents are either 1) religious and/or 2) wholly misguided on this issue (to the extent that they think that the slope down leads ineluctably to the masses wanting to not only F their pet dogs, but marry them, or for heteros to cease getting married even as gays marry, or something along those lines).

That's already happening in Europe.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

If you don't believe a certain group of people are worthy of the same rights and privileges as every other group of people, then yes, you're a bigot.

The pro-gay marriage side generally assumes that their definition of marriage as a "union between two people" is an objective definition when in fact it is subjective, just as the definition of marriage as a "union between a man and a woman" is subjective.  The bigots on both sides of this issue assume wrongly that their subjective definition is in fact objective.  Note that my view of this as being a subjective viewpoint is why although I am in favor of treating same-gender marriage the same as mixed-gender marriage, I am strongly opposed to having the law changed by judicial fiat.  Subjective issues should be decided by legislatures, not courts.

[Marokai Backbeat]

I agree with Ernest, we should have ended segregation and allowed mixed marries legislatively. I'm sure we'd have most of the US covered by now, right?

[Brittain33]

No. (D)

Quite a lot are. My opinion is that if you have heard the whole case for marriage and weighed the evidence and still oppose marriage equality, you lack empathy or imagination. Many people have not heard the case for marriage and are stuck in the default, which is that it "just ain't right." Then there are bigots, who by definition lack empathy.

I also though the reaction to Miss California was excessive and embarrassing, although since she signed on with Maggie Gallagher and NOM I've lost my sympathy for her.

[Kaine for Senate '18]

Absolutely not (D).

[Franzl]

most are, but not all.

[Landslide Lyndon]

No, unless they resort to hateful rhetoric and demonization.

I was uneasy with the notion at the beginning, which is not that surprising considering the fact that I grew up in a society where marriage was by definition an institution exclusively resrved between a man and a woman.
Give them some time and many people will see the struggle for marriage equality more favorably.

[minionofmidas]

My instinct is to say "no", but that is before I hear them talk.

That's harsh, but (with some gray areas and partial exemptions) it is the truth.
Not really caring about the issue one jot is a whole different cup of tea, of course. Even resenting how this issue has come to the forefront and supplanted issues you might find more important is a whole different cup of tea.
And objecting to legislation from the bench is also perfectly valid.

[Lunar]

Maybe not one or two

[Torie]

No, of course not.

But almost all of the opponents are either 1) religious and/or 2) wholly misguided on this issue (to the extent that they think that the slope down leads ineluctably to the masses wanting to not only F their pet dogs, but marry them, or for heteros to cease getting married even as gays marry, or something along those lines).

That's already happening in Europe.

What is happening across the pond? The marrying of  dogs or heteros not getting married because they think doing the same thing as gays (getting married) is just too castrating and effeminate and limp wristed to contemplate, and still get it up, or both?

I need to get out more.  I am just so out of touch!

[Wiz in Wis]

Yes (Normal)

[Wiz in Wis]

Are all anti-Gay Marriage Interracial Marriage advocates bigots?

[Rowan]

No, of course not.

But almost all of the opponents are either 1) religious and/or 2) wholly misguided on this issue (to the extent that they think that the slope down leads ineluctably to the masses wanting to not only F their pet dogs, but marry them, or for heteros to cease getting married even as gays marry, or something along those lines).

That's already happening in Europe.

What is happening across the pond? The marrying of  dogs or heteros not getting married because they think doing the same thing as gays (getting married) is just too castrating and effeminate and limp wristed to contemplate, and still get it up, or both?

I need to get out more.  I am just so out of touch!

Woman marries dolphin.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/10694972/

[Torie]

Rowan, just a couple of comments, and I will split. First, is it legal to marry a dolphin in Jerusalem (if so, what will those crafty Jews be up to next?), and second Jerusalem is not in Europe.

Take care.