"It's just how I was raised."
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
28-09-2013, 07:58 AM
RE: "It's just how I was raised."
heywood -

I consider Bigotry to be a somewhat loose definition. I'll explain:

Its 1 am. I'm returning home to Brooklyn from a Halloween party in Manhattan. I'm alone. Its dark. I'm a gorgeous [cue dramatic hair toss and fabio fan blowing] woman. Now I hear footsteps behind me. I turn, and notice a group of [insert your pick of race here, white, asian, black, latino] men walking behind me. Now, the reality is that now I am instantly afraid. Afraid merely for the fact that 1: they are of a race different than me; and 2) they don't have vaginas. Now does that make me bigoted because those are my private thoughts?

I don't consider myself to be bigoted. I am aware of stereotypes, and know that while some people do not fit into the stereotype, others do. Thats why there are stereotypes. The white woman has a stereotype for me as well. I am sometimes guilty of my fleeting categorizations of people based on outside appearances. I fully admit that. However, my private thoughts are not vocalized, or acted upon, other than my self preservation.

The only time I consider someone to be bigoted, is if they actively try to oppress the other side by vocalizing it. And by oppress, I mean that in any way possible, from denying someone a job because of your private thoughts, to shooting someone walking home with skittles and iced tea based on how they look.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
28-09-2013, 08:22 AM
RE: "It's just how I was raised."
I understand Heywood's point. The statement I hate all bigots, is a bigoted statement in its self.

Therefore I am guilty of being intolerant of other's intolerance.

however, like I said earlier, Heywood likes to distract from the OP with a slight of hand.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Cathym112's post
28-09-2013, 01:01 PM
RE: "It's just how I was raised."
(28-09-2013 08:22 AM)Cathym112 Wrote:  I understand Heywood's point. The statement I hate all bigots, is a bigoted statement in its self.

... Well... depends how you define bigot. But I define bigot as people that I hate 'cos they try to advance some kinda *bullshit* moral reason for discriminating against some entire class of people like skin colour or sexual orientation or ethnic background or religion... They claim it as *right thing to do*, like e.g. prohibiting inter-racial marriage on the basis of whatever the fuck crappy reasons... I don't give a flying fuck what they believe personally, much as with religion, it's when they try to e.g. make laws based on their twisted shittiness (as actually happened here in South Africa) that it needs to be opposed.

I don't class myself as bigoted against bigots on that basis 'cos I reckon my reason for despising actual bigots is pretty fucking decently reasoned.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like morondog's post
28-09-2013, 01:31 PM
RE: "It's just how I was raised."
The way I see it, being bigoted entails restricting someone's freedom compared to others based on things beyond that person's control: socioeconomic status (not initially under people's control, and still may be impossible to change for many), race, sexuality (from my experience, it seems Christianity (and probably some other religions, though I can't speak with any certainty) doesn't understand the physiology of homosexual people are different than those of heterosexuals, or that it is a natural occurrence), and sex being the most common. Admittedly there are some things within people's control which I think others can be bigoted against, but these things are all things I consider to be ones that don't affect those outside of the individual and others who consent to be involved in those things: This would include fetishes and abnormal styles of marriage. Again, the keys to my definition of bigotry are that the person is applying a biased set of rules based on things beyond someones control or that are between an individual and/or those consenting to do such things with the individual and don't affect others lives. The last thing I'd like to add to this idea is that to actually be bigoted, one would need to follow through with the initial negative thoughts they get. In other words, a bigot simply speaks out about how they dislike group x or y while the non-bigot thinks about why they feel uncomfortable around x and y and hopefully realize the only justification is group think and unfamiliarity.

Now, with that said, one cannot be bigoted against a bigot just based on that person's bigotry. This is because I could justify my anger against someone who is speaking toward limiting another person's freedom without justification. The bigot, however, cannot justify their bigotry without relying on false logic and/or information (which most religions like to train people into thinking is a legitimate way to justify a position).
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like Cake's post
28-09-2013, 01:43 PM
RE: "It's just how I was raised."
generally, i consider being bigoted as forcing unfair and unreasonable rules upon others.
to make a considerable example, i consider France's decision to make Germany the effectively worst country to live in ever after ww1, bigoted, as they imposed living hell on nearly all Germans in their home country, with the reasoning they caused the war, when in fact Austria did, and demanding... was it 7,000,000 reichsmark(?) in return for giving up, as well as making Germany unsavable were anyone to go to war with them.

that, lads, is bigoting. and the Americans did it too.

basically they said, when joining the allies: the Germans want to take over the world, and so we have to take over the world. i think only the fact they had allies to think of stopped them.

perhaps i am internally bigoted too, thinking the Americans turn just about everything upside down to justify their views...
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
28-09-2013, 02:22 PM
 
RE: "It's just how I was raised."
(28-09-2013 05:48 AM)morondog Wrote:  
(28-09-2013 05:30 AM)Philosoraptor Wrote:  For instance, some will say that merely opposing gay marriage is "homophobia."
*I* will say that... What else is it, other than a form of hate, to deny someone the right to legal status for a union, on the basis of something which affects solely them and their partner ?

I beg to differ, you're completely missing the definition of the word "hate."
Hate is an emotion of intense dislike - and having an reasoned opinion, in principle, doesn't involve any emotions.

My main objection to your view would be that marriage is not a right. A right is something you are entitled to. If marriage were a right, then the State would be required to obtain a marital partner for you - but this would violate someone else's liberty. Marriage is a privilege granted by a government from its people to its people. You're saying that a union between two people affects solely them - well, not really. Their relationship does, but the official stance on marriage has a societal aspect as well. And since the privileges of marriage (like inheritance, tax benefits, insurance...) are secured by the government, then the government may decide where the demarcation line of who can be married, will be. While heterosexual marriage has societal benefits like a secure environment for couples to raise their children, gay marriage has no such societal benefits. Therefore, I think it should be left at the discretion of a government, i.e. the people to decide on whether they want to extend marital privileges to homosexual couples in their society.

Quote:Whether or not a country is in sync with another is completely irrelevant. By denying someone that you allow to another as a right, ie, marriage, you are denying them based on their sex. If I am a woman who would like to marry another woman, you would be denying me that right for no other reason than the fact that I lack male gentiles.

I disagree. Discrimination based on sex happens when one sex is allowed/entitled to something, and the other isn't. But here this is not the case because the same rules apply to everyone.
In this scenario, every woman is allowed to marry a man, and no woman is allowed to marry another woman. Therefore, there is no discrimination here because nobody is allowed something that someone else isn't.
Quote this message in a reply
28-09-2013, 02:49 PM (This post was last modified: 28-09-2013 02:53 PM by odin.)
RE: "It's just how I was raised."
(28-09-2013 02:22 PM)Philosoraptor Wrote:  
Quote:Whether or not a country is in sync with another is completely irrelevant. By denying someone that you allow to another as a right, ie, marriage, you are denying them based on their sex. If I am a woman who would like to marry another woman, you would be denying me that right for no other reason than the fact that I lack male gentiles.

I disagree. Discrimination based on sex happens when one sex is allowed/entitled to something, and the other isn't. But here this is not the case because the same rules apply to everyone.
In this scenario, every woman is allowed to marry a man, and no woman is allowed to marry another woman. Therefore, there is no discrimination here because nobody is allowed something that someone else isn't.

the discrimination is that of the gays, imposed by the straight, who want nothing of the gay's way of conduct.
basically, there is no DIRECT discrimination of the sexes, but there is still discrimination, directed at the sexual preference of the gays.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
28-09-2013, 03:36 PM
RE: "It's just how I was raised."
(28-09-2013 02:22 PM)Philosoraptor Wrote:  My main objection to your view would be that marriage is not a right. A right is something you are entitled to. If marriage were a right, then the State would be required to obtain a marital partner for you - but this would violate someone else's liberty. Marriage is a privilege granted by a government from its people to its people. You're saying that a union between two people affects solely them - well, not really. Their relationship does, but the official stance on marriage has a societal aspect as well. And since the privileges of marriage (like inheritance, tax benefits, insurance...) are secured by the government, then the government may decide where the demarcation line of who can be married, will be. While heterosexual marriage has societal benefits like a secure environment for couples to raise their children, gay marriage has no such societal benefits. Therefore, I think it should be left at the discretion of a government, i.e. the people to decide on whether they want to extend marital privileges to homosexual couples in their society.

I disagree with your reasoning because I think that every societal benefit that can be assumed for heterosexual marriage also can be assumed for gay marriage, including secure environment for raising children. Therefore , the same privilege ( even if u insist calling marriage a privilege, not a right ) that is granted to heterosexuals has to be extended to gays.

One's right, or if you insist privilege, should not be determined by his/her's sexual orientation.
And by no means is the state obligated to insure that you use your right, state is there only to provide an opportunity for you to use your rights, if you chose to exercise them.
Like free speech i.e. , state is there to make sure that your right to speak your mind is not hampered , it is not required of the state to provide you with audience.

. . . ................................ ......................................... . [Image: 2dsmnow.gif] Eat at Joe's
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Slowminded's post
28-09-2013, 05:13 PM
RE: "It's just how I was raised."
"My main objection to your view would be that marriage is not a right. A right is something you are entitled to. If marriage were a right, then the State would be required to obtain a marital partner for you - but this would violate someone else's liberty. Marriage is a privilege granted by a government from its people to its people. You're saying that a union between two people affects solely them - well, not really. Their relationship does, but the official stance on marriage has a societal aspect as well. And since the privileges of marriage (like inheritance, tax benefits, insurance...) are secured by the government, then the government may decide where the demarcation line of who can be married, will be. While heterosexual marriage has societal benefits like a secure environment for couples to raise their children, gay marriage has no such societal benefits. Therefore, I think it should be left at the discretion of a government, i.e. the people to decide on whether they want to extend marital privileges to homosexual couples in their society."

Excuse me? Who says there is no social benefit to gays marrying? Who says its not a secure household? If the state required one man and one woman for children, there wouldnt' be so many single parent households. Please give any studies done that suggest that there isn't a social benefit. Thats incredibly close minded and surprising coming from someone who appears to be educated.

I know a lot of gay couples, with children, that make better loving parents than a lot of dysfunctional heterosexual couples. Thats like saying that bi-racial couples have no social benefit! ridiculous!

Bottom line, my gay neighbors have equal stance and view in my state's eyes as any other heterosexual couple, and the ability to love who you want and have that relationship recognized, with the same benefits as anyone else is a basic right. Like freedom to speak, and like Slowminded so aptly put it, the government has to ensure that you have that right, but they are not obligated to provide you an audience.

Further, a couple's legal marriage has ZERO impact on mine, or on society other than to have a more tolerant view. (not a bad thing)

I think you are overstating the effect societies from their stance on marriage. The only discernible impact to society is the presence or absence of tax benefits. For example, if a couple is died a tax benefit and get taxed at a higher rate, that would provide more revenue for the government but at almost a diminimus amount so as it would not make a difference. It makes no difference on society if a homosexual couple is allowed to make medical decisions for their spouse, nor does it make any difference to society if a homosexual couple's next of kin is their spouse. Makes no difference to our society regarding children, accept if you consider it as a positive thing that if a parent should die, that they would be kept out of the foster system by staying with the other "gay" parent.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
28-09-2013, 08:01 PM
RE: "It's just how I was raised."
(28-09-2013 02:22 PM)Philosoraptor Wrote:  I beg to differ, you're completely missing the definition of the word "hate."
Hate is an emotion of intense dislike - and having an reasoned opinion, in principle, doesn't involve any emotions.
I think your and my definitions of the word hate are different. I view oppression of a minority as hate regardless of how well reasoned it may be.

Quote: While heterosexual marriage has societal benefits like a secure environment for couples to raise their children, gay marriage has no such societal benefits.
Please back up this statement.

Quote:I disagree. Discrimination based on sex happens when one sex is allowed/entitled to something, and the other isn't. But here this is not the case because the same rules apply to everyone.
I say that you can't be married if you are an interracial couple. There is no discrimination here because the same rule applies to everyone equally.

The problem with the "same rule applies so suck it up" idea is that if I *want* to marry another man, I should be allowed to. Who are you to tell me what I can and cannot do ?

Also, at least in US AFAIK, law prohibits unequal treatment. Excluding a whole class of people from a legal union is unequal. You can't even get around it by saying "OK they can have a civil union but not marriage", unless you say "no one can have marriage any more, it is a civil union for everyone" - it has to be *equal* treatment.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: