Line between bigotry and traditional values.
 

Where do you draw a line between legitimate, sound traditional values, and willfully ignorant bigotry? Legitimate traditional values:

Marriage is between a man and a woman for life.
Abortion kills an unborn child.
Second Amendment protects the right to own and carry a gun.
Charity should be voluntary not extracted by the state at gunpoint.
The state should intervene as little as possible into the lives of the people.
Government should be elected by the people for the people.

Illegitimate traditional values:

Bombing the world trade centre to get access to my 72 virgins (hopefully female!)
Throwing acid in the face of women you believe are sluts.
Killing women for dishonouring their family.
Killing infidels because they aren't your religion.

That's my list.

The belief of the peasants was a traditional belief combined with the standard issue of tribal identities (which is the core cause of racism and why everyone is a bit racist).

The priests/theologians/etc who played a part in promoting this belief against the theological support of their holy books/etc were playing on the tribal identities of the peasants (which is what is always behind anti-Semitism and racism) and such are culpable.

I don't think I need to apologize about the anti-Semitism that my ancestors might have had. I do have some (small, not being catholic?) need to apologize about the anti-Semeticism that the Christian church leadership had.

Note that I don't think that Christianity itself is anti-Semitic, I think it was the leadership/etc of the Christian church (for a period of time) that was.

JM

But thinking that Jews are demonic is not necessarily anti-Semitism if this is based on one's religious belief, or traditional values.

I'm talking hypothetically.

In the US, bigots of course.

Note that I always put the leadership as at fault. And in US protestantism, every individual is considered as part of the leadership.

For white supremacy cults, it would just be the leaders.

JM

The OP is promoting a false dichotomy. As well as completely wrong about inferring that bigotry against Jews was "legitimate, sound" in any era.

A person is either bigoted or not bigoted. If that person is predisposed to being a bigot by their upbringing it doesn't change that they are a bigot. (Otherwise there would be no bigots.)

It is anti-Semitism regardless of why anyone thinks it.

For me it's about freedom of religion and racism. The gay marriage issue doesn't have anything to do with those things. Btw, I don't takes sides on this but I don't think it helps your cause by calling people bigots who are not.

Yeah, but it is just annoying and I can ignore MrFun just like I can ignore the anti-gay Christians.

Harder to ignore are people like rah who seem really against traditional marriage, and use the change of definition to support their position.

JM

Why can a person be opposed to gay marriage on traditional values grounds without being called a homophobe, but then if someone believes that Jews are immoral for not believing Jesus Christ based on traditional values grounds is definitely an anti-Semite. Again, false analogy.

Better analogy. Usury is wrong = antisemitism. You are saying that gay people should be defined by their conduct which is in effect, a bigoted statement. Bans on Usury are no more antisemitic than bans on gay marriage. You're basically arguing that Jewish people have no choice but to conduct usury.

You manage it quite well, judging from the healthcare debate.

Saying that marriage is a bond between one man and one woman and not two men is not bigotry.

Saying that marriage is a bond between one man and one woman and not two men because you think that two men being together is wrong/etc is bigotry.

Think about what bigotry is. It is a reason for things, there is nothing inherently bigoted about saying that marriage is a bond between man and woman (only) than there is about saying that only people over the age of 18 should have sex.

JM

So... saying that marriage is a bond between those of the same race and not of two different races is not bigotry?

Either way you are judging the worthiness of the excluded couplings and saying they should not have access to marriage due to your biases. That's bigotry. You may think one is justified and not the other, but it's still bigotry in both.

Which of course is the heart of the matter. People see bigotry when it goes against their biases, but not when it's their bias.

Blue Jays and Cardinals are both beautiful birds, but they don't intermingle.

Actually I believe that government shouldn't have anything to do with marriage.

Then how is it bigotry to argue that the state does have a role in marriage, and that marriage has a specific purpose to the state, in making sure kiddos have a mom and dad to look after them?

In your ****ed up world 2 men or 2 women who love their children and treat them as best they can can't give them as good a home as some drunk man who beats his wife and molests his children. But whatever floats your boat dude Not what I'm saying. I'm saying that on average (there's that phrase again), the best outcome for kids is to be raised by mom and dad who are married to each other. You aren't stupid, Aeson. You make decisions for yourself based on what you believe will give you the best outcome.

The state penalizing decisions which are harmful to the overall well being of children, is part of the job of the state. If the state were to incentivize bad choices (as they often do), then they get the results that they do not want. It's because the state does incentivize these things that we see so many single moms out there.

Yes, single moms can and do a great job with their kids. But if you've got a choice between Joe or Dom Dimaggio for an at-bat, what's the rational choice?

I can't see how bursting your own eardrum with a dildo increases your chances of having children with hearing disabilities. http://www.discussworldissues.com/fo...ilies/wink.gif

You saying that marriage is between two people but not between a person and their progeny is bigotry. You insist on a special type relationship (called father and son, if they are both male) is bigoted, why are you so biased?

JM

But it isn't, and people still have no intention of calling it marriage.

And people not wanting to call it marriage does not mean they are biased/etc against the parental/progeny relationship. Which is the subject of this thread.

JM