The Marriage Equality Bill

[AB Editor]

 

This poll is closed.

Are those opposing the marriage equality bill bigots?

• No. - 140 votes
• 69%
• Yes. - 63 votes
• 31%

See final stats

Stats until: 15:47 Thu 14th Nov 2024 (Refreshed every 5 minutes)

© AnswerBank Ltd 2000 - 2024. All Rights Reserved.

[anotheoldgit]

Certainly not, there is far too much of this name calling just because one has a different view on some subjects than others.

On the radio this morning a homosexual said "why should some expect respect of their lifestyle when they themselves are not prepared to respect other's" lifestyles, and he went on to say they (gays) already enjoyed special provisions laid out in their Civil Partnership legislation, that are not open to heterosexuals.

[jim360]

Question is too general I think.

[daisya]

aog - if that's the case then some are more equal than others (smile)....hmmm makes you wonder what equality means to some doesn't it!

Have to agree with you over the name calling though....labels everywhere and some unfounded of course.

[Sharingan]

Generally yes, or they do not understand that a civil partnership is nowhere near equal in any terms to a marriage.

[emmie]

no, because we all have a choice, opinion, and just because it doesn't accord with others, it doesn't make one a bigot.

[tonyav]

Seems to me that it pretty much the same as that if you don't agree with immigration then you must be a racist !.

[woofgang]

no, I think that bigots is the wrong choice of word. Some may be confused, scared, have a genuine belief that its not what their god wants and so on. opposing the bill doesn't necessarily make then bigots. I don't want to say yes though because that might imply that I agree with them.

[RATTER15]

YES!!

[ummmm]

I agree with woofgang.

[anotheoldgit]

jim360

/// Question is too general I think. ///

Can't see why the question is simple "Are those opposing the marriage equality bill bigots"

And the answer is even more simple "Yes" or "No".

[jim360]

It's too general because people have different reasons for opposing the bill. Some probably are bigots, undoubtedly. Others, I think, have more reasonable concerns that deserve respect.

[ummmm]

I'm not answering because I don't agree with either statement.

I don't believe that all people that oppose gay marriage are bigots, although I believe that many of them are.

[bazwillrun]

Why not have , "are those opposed to mass immigration bigots/racist/xenophome etc (pick one ), yes or no

[sp1814]

The problem with the opposition to marriage equality (and this is the reason why some default to calling people bigots) is that those opposing the changes haven't really come up with any really excellent reasons why they oppose the changes.

If someone opposes mixed race marriages, and their only reason is, "Because I don't agree with changing the institution of marriage to allow inferior genes into my gene pool", then it's fair to call that person a bigot.

Unfortunately, the debate has been sullied on one side by people defaulting to shouting 'bigot', and on the other side by people comparing gay couples to those who want to marry their their dogs.

Neither response moves the debate onwards, and just provides the other side with valuable ammo.

[tamborine]

One sex can indulge without marriage or religeon. Must we know everyones sex habits ?

[sp1814]

tamborine

Perhaps for 'sex' we should substitute 'love'?

[sp1814]

tamborine

What I mean by that, is when you go to a wedding, it's all about love, is it not?

The sex part is the honeymoon.

[anotheoldgit]

sp1814

/// The problem with the opposition to marriage equality (and this is the reason why some default to calling people bigots) is that those opposing the changes haven't really come up with any really excellent reasons why they oppose the changes. ///

Simply because many can't understand why gays want to get 'Married' if this means in a church, those not attached to the church cannot alter that fact if those are church's rules.

Others simply have strong views that marriage is a man and woman tradition, and they do not wish such traditions come to an end, should they be called 'bigots' for that?

/// If someone opposes mixed race marriages, and their only reason is, "Because I don't agree with changing the institution of marriage to allow inferior genes into my gene pool", then it's fair to call that person a bigot. ///

You straight away must class yourself as a 'bigot' or at least assumes one's self somehow inferior.

Why should a person immediately take that view of mixed race marriages, when there are many more things that could oppose one from agreeing with mixed marriages than classing one's self as superior.

/// Unfortunately, the debate has been sullied on one side by people defaulting to shouting 'bigot', and on the other side by people comparing gay couples to those who want to marry their their dogs. ///

There you go again, totally sensationalising the situation, who made any reference between gay couples and those wanting to marry their dog. anyway why dogs, are cats inferior in some way? :0)

/// Neither response moves the debate onwards, and just provides the other side with valuable ammo. ///

And you certainly supply me with plenty of valuable ammo.

[anotheoldgit]

sp1814

/// What I mean by that, is when you go to a wedding, it's all about love, is it not? ///

/// The sex part is the honeymoon ///

Well yes, unless of course the couple can't wait until the honeymoon. :0)

.

[sp1814]

AOG

No, perhaps I didn't explain myself. There have been a number of commentators (and MPs) opposing marriage equality by arguing that if we allow gay couples to marry, 'what's to stop people demanding the right to marry their pets'.

I'm not sure why you're bringing the church into this. This is about civil weddings, not church weddings.