Questions about bigotry.

[NotNow]

I asked first.

[finehoe]

No one is not allowing anyone to have "their basic rights"

According to the federal government's General Accounting Office (GAO), more than 1,000 rights and protections are conferred to U.S. citizens upon marriage. Areas affected include Social Security benefits, veterans' benefits, health insurance, Medicaid, hospital visitation, estate taxes, retirement savings, pensions, family leave, and immigration law.

http://www.gao.gov/archive/1997/og97016.pdf

[Clem1029]

No one is not allowing anyone to have "their basic rights"

According to the federal government's General Accounting Office (GAO), more than 1,000 rights and protections are conferred to U.S. citizens upon marriage. Areas affected include Social Security benefits, veterans' benefits, health insurance, Medicaid, hospital visitation, estate taxes, retirement savings, pensions, family leave, and immigration law.

http://www.gao.gov/archive/1997/og97016.pdf

At risk of being obvious...that doesn't answer the questions...

[NotNow]

Is it bigotry when StephenDare! says:

"It seems like you really only get upset about the whole Constitution or bigotry or 'rights' when it comes to straight, white, christians."?

Has he classified me?  

And finehoe, I have stated REPEATEDLY that the state should not subsidize coupling of ANY kind.  So in that regard, I completely agree with you, although I would remove any favoritism rather than add gay marriage on the basis that the government has no authority to subsidize ANY preferred form of residential household or personal relationship.

[Clem1029]

At the risk of being even more obvious, if a person cannnot get married, then they are denied those rights.  Clem.  How old are you?  Serious question.

Yeah, here we go with you trying to redefine terms again...

1) I'm open to be convinced here, but is there actually a "right" to get married? Because if so, Brad Pitt is so totally crushing my right to marry Angelia Jolie...
2) Nobody is denied anything...every individual has access to the law as it exists. It is up to the individual to decide to make use of the law.

Keep on trying though...

[Clem1029]

Wow...not sure about anyone else, I just had a Billy Madison moment after reading that response...

[buckethead]

The government has no business granting my wife and I legal advantage because we are heterosexual, married and have children. If two people of the same sex cannot enjoy the same familial and tax advantages, why should straight couples?

I believe in equal protection under the law.

The phrase "And Justice for all." is thrown around quite casually but it certainly fits here. Homosexuals are treated unjustly regarding marital status.

If marriage were a strictly religious institution, it would not be an issue.

[finehoe]

...is there actually a "right" to get married?

The United States Supreme Court says there is:

"The freedom to marry has long been recognized as one of the vital personal rights essential to the orderly pursuit of happiness by free men.

Marriage is one of the 'basic civil rights of man'"

http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/historics/USSC_CR_0388_0001_ZO.html

[Clem1029]

...is there actually a "right" to get married?

The United States Supreme Court says there is:

"The freedom to marry has long been recognized as one of the vital personal rights essential to the orderly pursuit of happiness by free men.

Marriage is one of the 'basic civil rights of man'"

http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/historics/USSC_CR_0388_0001_ZO.html

Let me start off by saying that this is actually a point of evidence that contributes to the debate. Thank you.

Going on this route though, an individual has the right to get married, but that's only up to a point, right? The "Angelina Jolie" thing is a bit of an exaggerated illustration of this isn't it? Namely, my right to get married can be superseded by other rights or other laws (her right not to marry me, her right to be married to her husband, and a law that says Brad Pitt and I both can't be married to her). So while the right may exist, the right to be married obviously has restrictions. So the first question is - are folks arguing that this right should have no restrictions whatsoever, or that restrictions on the right are ok, we just need to adjust them a little bit?

Second, as I pointed out before, the law doesn't prevent anyone from getting married. The context of the law is that "any one man can be married to any one woman." The law doesn't say "any one man except lefthanders..." or something like that. The law is equally open and accessible to every individual. No right is denied by the law. That an individual chooses not to partake in the law doesn't mean the law is denying a right.

[NotNow]

The government has no business granting my wife and I legal advantage because we are heterosexual, married and have children. If to people of the same sex cannot enjoy the same familial and tax advantages, why should straigh couples.

I believe in equal protection under the law.

The phrase "And Justice for all." is thrown around quite casually but it certainly fits here. Homosexuals are treated unjustly regarding marital status.

If marriage were a strictly religious institution, it would not be an issue.

BH, that is my point exactly.  The state should not be involved in a religious institution at all, and should show NO preference in taxation or anyother responsibility or service.  It seems that this view makes me a bigot on this forum. 

[NotNow]

now, suddenly, you are an expert on 'context'?
http://www.metrojacksonville.com/forum/index.php/topic,2662.msg149220.html#msg149220

If you would argue with facts or well reasoned logic, instead of insults, you might actually communicate with someone.  Try it, really.

[buckethead]

NN, I read your post as saying exactly that. I do not see it as bigoted.

A question for the board: Should bigotry be outlawed?

Another:

What are the differences among bigotry, racism and prejudice?

[Tripoli1711]

NN, I read your post as saying exactly that. I do not see it as bigoted.

A question for the board: Should bigotry be outlawed?

Another:

What are the differences among bigotry, racism and prejudice?

No.  Who gets to be the decision maker?

The differences, I feel, are rather simple.

The definition of bigotry has already been established in this thread.  Prejudice is pre-judging.  It's watching the news and hearing someone say "a young woman was raped tonight in Riverside" and saying "I bet it was blacks".  It's seeing someone speaking spanish at wal-mart and saying "I bet he's an illegal immigrant"...   If you are prejudiced you prejudge the actions and/or worth of another person based upon their group.
Racism is believing in the superiority of one race over another.  It is an asian believing that he is superior to a white simply because he is asian and the other person is white.

[buckethead]

 a belief that race is the primary determinant of human traits and capacities and that racial differences produce an inherent superiority of a particular race


a person obstinately or intolerantly devoted to his or her own opinions and prejudices; especially : one who regards or treats the members of a group (as a racial or ethnic group) with hatred and intolerance

injury or damage resulting from some judgment or action of another in disregard of one's rights; especially : detriment to one's legal rights or claims

preconceived judgment or opinion (2) : an adverse opinion or leaning formed without just grounds or before sufficient knowledge b : an instance of such judgment or opinion c : an irrational attitude of hostility directed against an individual, a group, a race, or their supposed characteristics

This could help.

[Tripoli1711]

I was pretty close, no?

That's why its frustrating when "racist" is thrown around all the time to describe what is, for the most part, prejudice and not racism.  Racism is a REALLY REALLY strong term.  Prejudice is bad, but it can be a result of ignorance.  Racism is the worst thing possible because you essentially believe God favors you above others simply because of the color of your skin.