[simeonf]

I can't believe I'm saying this on HN (where I would like to see less political discussion, not more) but having a different cultural and political viewpoint does not make somebody a bigot. The constant assertion that it does is bullying - an attempt to impose your morals on everybody else.

Please - if you literally consider the worlds Catholic and Muslim population (to cite two large religious populations nearly uniformly opposed to your position) as possessing beliefs so repellent that you wouldn't work at a company that employed one... then I pity your intolerance for the weird and wacky mosaic that is humanity.

I've got plenty of weird and ridiculous beliefs of my own. And sometimes I want to respond to the people I disagree with by identifying them as evil or stupid. Frequently I discover that from their context - the values they were raised with, their own life experiences - their positions are more reasonable than I want to give them credit for. The socialists who grew up immersed in boomer politics, the anarchist who saw his friends beaten up by the cops... The anti-abortion activist who can't believe anyone would kill a baby... and yes the gay friends who can't believe someone doesn't want them to be able to marry the person they love. All people.

By all means do your political thing and fight for what you believe in. But hating and smearing anybody who doesn't agree with you doesn't make me sympathetic to your cause.

[pilgrim689]

I'm pretty sure some beliefs actually ruin lives (sexism, racism, homophobia, etc.). Do you just accept all of them as being "weird and wacky"? Shouldn't we draw the line somewhere? Even the great thinkers in ethics like Kant or John Stuart Mills draw the line somewhere, each in their own way... but both utlitarian and kantian ethics would agree that preventing sexuality equality is unethical.

[AnthonyMouse]

>I'm pretty sure some beliefs actually ruin lives

Lots of beliefs ruin lives. I can show you conservatives who fervently believe that having high taxes on high income earners would destroy the country, because Henry Ford types would then find it more attractive to take a 40 hour a week management job at an established corporation than to spend 100 hours a week to create a new industry, and the lack of anyone selling affordable transportation would then condemn anyone not born within walking distance of gainful employment opportunities to a life of abject poverty (and so on for each generation's major innovations). There are serious scientists who argue that not imposing a significant carbon tax right now will soon result in irreparable damage to the planet and widespread death, destruction and famine. Then there are people who argue the opposite of these things -- that not imposing serious taxes on the rich will lead to insufferable inequality, that the increase in energy costs that would come from any serious effort to address climate change will be extremely regressive and cause real immediate harm to those living in poverty, etc.

Take any issue and you'll find two sides to it. You can believe that your side is right, but the other side believes that their side is right. One of you has to be wrong, but that doesn't mean either of you is evil. Everybody is wrong sometimes.

You're sure that it isn't you who is wrong in this specific case because it affects you individually. If you were wrong about this then the result would be to your detriment. But that doesn't prove that you're right -- or that you're wrong. It only proves that you have a stake in the outcome, which (because you're human) makes you want to paint those who disagree with the position you take as the enemy. But they're not evil. They just disagree with you on an issue that personally affects you.

[pilgrim689]

I'm not saying I have proved that I am right. I simply provided an argument for the position (which you have failed to do). I just said that homophobia ruins lives (and it does, ask a homosexual). Now, it is up to the other party to say "ah, but gay marriage is bad because the Bible says so." Then, when all arguments are done, it is up to the judge to say who is right and who is wrong.

You can't just say "umm but no one is evil and everyone disagrees and everyone ruins someone else's life some way or another so what the heck? Let's just do whatever?" That leads nowhere.

[AnthonyMouse]

Were you expecting me to defend the religious zealots? I never said I agreed with them. All I'm saying is that they're normal humans who have jobs and lives. They don't get up in the morning and say, "geez, how can we make life hard for pilgrim689 today?" A lot of them honestly believe that they're acting in your interest by saving you from eternal damnation.

>Then, when all arguments are done, it is up to the judge to say who is right and who is wrong.

The judge is just a lawyer in a robe. The judge can be just as wrong as anyone else. (See e.g. Dred Scott.) And the judge doesn't get the final say anyway, we do. We The People get to appoint different judges or pass new laws or amend the constitution. So we have to decide somehow which of you is right or wrong. Isn't it better to treat one another as people acting in good faith and have a debate and try to convince each other than to wage a holy war where each side dismisses the other as a immoral and proceeds to partisan political maneuvering rather than mutual understanding?

[RHSeeger]

Beliefs don't ruin lives, actions do.

[pilgrim689]

Sure... and what caused the action? Was it not the belief? So should I have said "beliefs indirectly ruin lives"? Actually, does the action even directly ruin lives, or is it the way you react to an action that will ruin your life or not? Bah. It's just a nitpick, isn't it?

[RHSeeger]

My apologies, I shouldn't have been so brief. Where I was going with my comment is that I don't take issue with other people's beliefs. What I take issue with is how they treat others. They may treat people badly because of their beliefs or because they're jerks... just as someone that is a biggot may still treat people well (ie "you're lesser than me, but all people deserve response").

[ben0x539]

> The constant assertion that it does is bullying - an attempt to impose your morals on everybody else.

I think you really got something backwards here if you think that oppressed minorities are the ones doing the bullying here.

[calebegg]

> religious populations nearly uniformly opposed to your position

There's a lot to unpack here, and I disagree with more than this one part of your comment, but I want to be absolutely clear on this. Catholics are not "nearly uniformly opposed" to SSM. As of 2012, a slim majority (around 52%) of American Catholics support SSM (Pew Research poll). The pope does not speak for all, or even most Catholics.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homosexuality_and_Roman_Catholi...

You probably wouldn't object to calling a racist person a bigot. It is my opinion that just because there are more (open, visible) homophobes than (open, visible) racists doesn't mean that we shouldn't try to call it what it is. Would it have been inappropriate in 1978, the year that the Mormon church finally rescinded their policy of not allowing black people to be ordained, to call Mormon racists out as bigots? I feel that it would not.