Line between bigotry and traditional values.

[MikeH]

The issue is 'do you stick with the traditional european definition of marriage, or are you willing to change it'.

The issue is "do you accept the modern inclusive definition of marriage, or do you want to continue to make gay couples feel like second class citizens in this area"

[MikeH]

To some traditional people, it is just at utterly ridiculous as saying that the term marriage doesn't imply a man and a woman.

JM

Society is moving away from them, and they need to accept that and move on.

[MikeH]

One can't escape the fact that insisting marriage can only be between a man and a woman is sending a message of supporting inequality, that causes gay couples genuine hurt and frustration. Whether intended or not. "It's always been that way" isn't an acceptable reason for that.

[Jon Miller]

Society is moving away from them, and they need to accept that and move on.

This does not mean that they are bigoted or even prejudiced!

JM

[MikeH]

No, they are prejudiced for not wanting gays to have equal rights to marry.

[Jon Miller]

No, because they think that marriage is a man and a woman.

You show real limitation from your ability to see things from another point of view.

JM

[MikeH]

Who says I cant understand what they think or why?

I just disagree with it. I think it is both discriminatory and hurtful. I think it is outdated and I also think it's against the spirit of our anti-discrimination laws, even in countries/regions where that discrimination is not specifically illegal.

[MikeH]

BTW Jon I haven't yet heard a sensible reason for it not being discriminatory to not allow gays to marry, and to call it marriage.

[Jon Miller]

How is having a traditional definition of marriage anymore discriminatory than having the definition of marriage that doesn't include employer/employee or son/father or etc style relationships?

Additionally, your claim was not just that it was discriminatory. Every definition is discriminatory, they allow us to discriminate between different groups (the group that is married and the group that is not, most obviously).

What you claimed was that every person who desired to keep the traditional definition of marriage was not only prejudiced against homosexuals but also bigots!

Saying that you think it is outdated, that you think it is hurtful, and so on is fine. This is your thoughts, you can even say it from their perspective (I think). But you are doing more than that here, you are saying that they are prejudiced and bigoted. This is a wrong conclusion and not rational, and entirely different than saying that you disagree with a position or think that it is outdated or think that it is hurtful.

Another example: "beating children". I think it is entirely possible to beat your children while loving them, wanting what is best for them, and so on. That doesn't stop me from thinking that beating your children is outdated and hurtful.

JM

[MikeH]

How is having a traditional definition of marriage anymore discriminatory than having the definition of marriage that doesn't include employer/employee or son/father or etc style relationships?

Additionally, your claim was not just that it was discriminatory. Every definition is discriminatory, they allow us to discriminate between different groups (the group that is married and the group that is not, most obviously).

What you claimed was that every person who desired to keep the traditional definition of marriage was not only prejudiced against homosexuals but also bigots!

Because those are are 'discriminating' against things you just made up that no-one is calling for that certainly don't fall under the category of things that our societies have legislated to stop people discriminating about. They are all just a massive strawman.

I changed my wording from bigot to prejudiced when I realised it seemed people were taking 'bigot' as a much more severe term than I intended, I thought it was harming the debate to use that word, so I used a less emotive one.

[MikeH]

Another example: "beating children". I think it is entirely possible to beat your children while loving them, wanting what is best for them, and so on. That doesn't stop me from thinking that beating your children is outdated and hurtful.

JM

Doesn't this support my point? We made beating your children illegal because it was outdated and hurtful. We made gay marriage legal because having it illegal was outdated and hurtful.

[MikeH]

Wanting to beat your children to discipline them, is certainly misguided and wrong in the face of modern evidence. So it's a very similar situation.

[Jon Miller]

But it doesn't mean that the person doing it doesn't like children, is angry at their children, wants to harm their children, wants to hurt them, etc, etc, etc.

Just like someone who wants marriage to keep the traditional european definition doesn't mean that they are homophobic, bigoted, prejudiced, etc, etc, etc.

JM

[MikeH]

If you are a parent who wants to beat your children in the face of all the evidence saying it doesn't help discipline them, and it is mentally harmful to them then yes, I think you can say they are choosing to harm their children.

[Jon Miller]

See, you are still displaying an inability to see things from a different persons point of view.

JM