h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

http://www.newstatesman.com/blogs/politics/2012/09/why-bigot-row-has-done-clegg-no-good

Clegg in hot water over claims in an email that those opposing gay marriage are bigots.

Not really intended this to be a thread about the rights and wrongs of the issue (we already have one of those I think) but more the way these things shift.

For my I think it is only a matter of time before gay marriage happens, those opposing it are (rightly or wrongly) on the wrong side of history and they won't prevail.

I think, irrespective of what the situation is now, within 5-10 years of it coming in it will be an entirely uncontroversial statement that people opposing it, calling for it to be repealed say, will be described as bigots.

I think it is quite interesting how these things change.

FB

I bet the idea of women being able to initiate divorce (to pluck something entirely at random) would have had a similar throng of people claiming it was immoral etc. etc. etc. yet now we don't bat an eyelid at either party being able to start proceedings.

I hope you are right.

I think Clegg pulled a punch there. Not only are these people bigots they are evil-doers. He should have sent the drones in to sort out these men in frocks (ecclesiastic frocks).

I think the real story about this is which member of his team "Leaked" it and why........or was it really a member of the thought police in action?

It's inflammatory language which is more likely to polarize the debate .

They are bigots and, as someone who is utterly sick of the lies and insults they use to justify their bigotry, it's nice to see them called as such. Maybe it was't a good political move but Clegg isn't a good politician. I almost had some respect for him until be backtracked like a frightened child when challenged.

As The Doc said, the interesting thing is who leaked it. Someone on his own staff is trying to bring him down.

Isn't this essentially just a discussion of what we mean by the word 'bigot'? I had always assumed it to mean someone who was strongly and unreasoningly prejudiced.

If gay marriage was something which was - and it's so hard to be objective about this - self-evidently morally positive and widely accepted as such, and that there was no coherent argument against it not based on deeper prejudice, then you could argue that opponents were in some sense bigoted. I'm not sure that's necessarily the case.

The fact that this is partly a religious issue sort of muddies the water, as reasoned argument surely carries slightly less value in this particular area...

I just think it is interesting that at some point in the future post the legislation getting passed it will be an uncontroversial statement here.

Attitudes change, and people like the status quo. People often come to defend passionately things they previously opposed just because it has come to be normal.

FB

Askoxford defines bigoted as "having or revealing an obstinate belief in the superiority of one’s own opinions and a prejudiced intolerance of the opinions of others".

I guess we all believe our opinions are superior, otherwise we'd hold different ones.

Are we obstinate in those beliefs? It depends how strongly we hold them. Maybe we see little in the opposing view to persuade us to change.

Are we intolerant? That's a bit different. We'd need to display some sort of behaviour which attacks those of differing beliefs.

Is such tolerance prejudiced? We'd need to show a lack of rationality or justification for doing so.

<>

A very good point. I think the last 50 years have seen social change at a rate unprecedented in world history and it's left entire generations unsure exactly what is "normal" any more.

Using offensive language and branding people isn't a particularly good way of combating intolerance and (quite often genuine) ignorance.

IMHO

What rational reasons are there for opposing gay marriage?

By rational I mean logically consistent. I suspect you mean justifiable, legitimate or credible?

Not sure of the distinction between 'rational' and 'justifiable, legitimate and credible' in this situation.

I've seen the 'secular argument' put forward, which is that marriage is a social artefact and as such created for the benefit of society - marriage benefits society by supporting partnerships which could potentially produce children who would ensure that society's continuation. Gay partnerships, mutatis mutandis, are not going to produce children, therefore don't benefit society, therefore don't deserve society's support.

I have to say I didn't find it tremendously convincing, but it's sort of coherent. I expect one could pick holes in it without too much difficulty should one feel the need. Other arguments may well be available.

A propos of nothing, ...

Does not the lead-in of post #9 define all of the "new atheist" and related sorts? On this site and elsewhere?

Yes, yes, I am sure that right here and now, it is justified ... or what-evers. In the end, where-ever your position stands on ANYthing, if you are totally immoveable and obstinate, ... reguardless of right or wrong, ...

You are a bigot.

I do like an entirely unbiased definition ...

The point I was trying to make by deconstructing that definition is that a bigot has to me more than just immovable and obstinate, they have to be actively intolerant. I'm not sure there's a law against being racist, for example, but there is for inciting racial hatred.

A mountain is a bigot but in time its differences are smoothed over.

Re: post #15 .... you continue to describe quite a lot of long-time h2g2'rs ... I must say, I've not seen such a simple word be used to describe all of the long-timers who pose as 'support' of DNA's atheism while actively pushing their own very aggressive agendas. Nicely done, thank you.

Is it OK to be against 'Gay marriage ', on non-religion or dogma based grounds? Civil partnerships seem to do all that marriage does, in terms of the law and legal status, so I guess 'gay marriage' in this respect, meaning Church marriage? Most Church marriages seem aweful to me anyhow, gay or hetrosexual, all that utter waste of money and pointless pomp, just to satisfy one or other (or both), of the participants families... Mind, I'd rather like going to the reception after a 'gay marriage', coudl be quite fun

I suppose if it is church marriage one might ask why would a gay couple want to get married in a church. However if they were both christian, then I could understand why they might want to be married in a christian church. If you can have gay priests etc in the church then there should also be gay marriages.

I don't think this is therefore the same as two satanists wishing for a church marriage (I suppose they would ask for the crucifixes to be rotated).

I got married in a Registry Office, nothing to do with any religion. Why can't gay people get married in a Registry Office?

Seems to me the god-botherers should just change their ceremony's name.