My mistake. You, of course, are the premise king, and i should have checked with you first. It was my impression that men and women had been entering into a union to create families since hunter-gatherer times. Of course, the only reason to hold that impression is bigotry, right?
Eh, I knew when bigot was mentioned you'd be here to make sure it was applied correctly. So was it? Is anyone who believes the term marriage should be applied to a specific relationship between opposite sexes a bigot? It's your job to tell us these things.
Marriage has changed quite a bit over time and same sex relationships have varied since ancient times and by cultures. It's actually pretty fascinating to examine the different aspects of it over time. But, I definitely agree that marriage in no way has stayed static over time and also think Moore expresses his opinion from his own prejudice.
Aside from remembering something about a renegade judge from Alabama, I don't know Moore's stances or reasons behind them, which is why I limited the question to what I did. However, I think it's actually pretty fascinating to find that a moral position held by the vast majority of people in the country yesterday is today based solely on bigotry and was never really held by many people anyway. People can believe whatever they want about marriage, and there are legal systems that can (and have) changed the construct. Disagreeing with today's fashionable mainstream, however, requires a scarlet 'B' and an honorary membership in the Ku Klux Klan.
What difference is it that a majority of people were relatively recently against it in regards to this being a prejudiced attitude or not?
So what's your opinion? Does believing that the term marriage should apply to relationships involving a man and a woman make someone a bigot? Why do you need to ostracize those of different beliefs by labeling them prejudiced?
It is a prejudiced view. Labeling someone a bigot is a bit much, as I don't know if you harbor hated and disdain for homosexuals themselves. Is it a bigoted viewpoint that only landed white men should be able to vote? This was once a common viewpoint as well. Morals change over time, they evolve. And I think we have headed in the right direction over time. People that don't agree with any new moral outlook will die out or change themselves. Way of things.
So, you want it both ways? You want to tell gay people that they can't have the equal right to get married, but not have that labeled as being prejudiced against gay people? Plenty of people believe stuff that is prejudicial to certain groups of people. Just because they "believe" it doesn't preclude them from this. I'm sure I have prejudices against certain groups of people. It's up to me whether or not I retain those attitudes and claim my prejudices.
I'm trying to wrap my head around the usage throughout history. So does that make it in fact heritage, not hate?
Dude is a complete tool. **** him. He probably gets elected again after all of this though. Sent from my HTC One M9 using Tapatalk
I don't think it is necessarily prejudiced view, but evidently I'm not the one who gets to decide whether a view is bigoted or not; that's IP. I'll also point out that the bolded sentence has allowed every tyrannical ideology in history to exist.
I disagree with your last analysis. You are not forced to change. You either will die with your views or you will change them. Either way, eventually that viewpoint will fade if it is no longer the consensus view. Much like my example of who gets to vote.
If there ever comes a point where a seven year old can reasonably vote, and there is a consensus among the electorate that it is true, then yes, we will eventually change our minds or I will die believing a seven year old has no business voting. But I doubt that day will ever come. Edit: and I am trying very hard to avoid the word bigot as it carries a weight of hatred with it. Of malice.