Originally posted by: Corbett
You are the one who suggested there may be certain situations where opposing gay marriage would be "not bigoted", so please, just tell them what those situations would be so we can all know.
You really need a clue.
Let's say someone comes along and says "the holocaust never happened". You could just say "you're stating something offensive that I've seen more than evidence to have no doubt is wrong, so get the hell away from me." But let's say you are in the mood for a 'discussion', so you say instead, "oh, really? Why, here's plenty of evidence it happened. Now, you say it didn't, so show me your evidence it didn't."
The person says to you, "you aren't willing to listen! You're just attacking me as not having any evidence!" You say to them, "no, no, I'm listening, to see if you have evidene."
The person then says to you, "You said there might be evidence - so you say what the evidence is!"
Substitute for holocaust the law of gravity, the roundness of the earth, legalizing slavery, whatever you like, the point is the same.
*I'm* saying that if you want to discriminate, you should have justification, and asking you to provide it. I'm not saying it exists, any more than I'd say justification for restoring slavery exists when I ask you to provide justification for that policy. You presumably have reasons for your position, and I'm asking you to state them, and then we can see whether they are based on bigotry. As bigots do, you are running around trying to ask me to give you reasons and such, not discussing the issue.
But to answer the other part of your question - what arguments could there be - I'll give you some.
Let's use an analogy of pedophiles. That's a group I favor discriminating against - for reasons I can argue are justified, and not bigotry.
I think pedophiles tend to be people who have an unchosen compulsion, a warped view of children, and they are victims as well - but that we need to protect children from them.
My reasons point to the harm done children. That WOULD be the sort of argument against gay marriage that's not bigoted - except the facts don't support you.
Let's say that gay marriage was qualitatively found to not resemble two adults loving one another; to result in one partner killing the other in a majority of unions, to not have adult affection but rather to resemble something like two six year olds being married, so you could really make a case that it qualitatively was not a marriage, based on solid evidence. That would be an argument not based on bigotry, but the facts don't support you.
We could go on, but it should be clear by now you need to provide *justification* that there is some rational problem caused by gay marriage outwieghing the benefits of equality.
You can't, and so you just avoid the need for justification in many posts, defending discrimination for reasons that are not anything more than bigotry.
Facebook
Twitter