[Sean]

Originally Posted by 34958hq439-qjw9v5jq298v5j

Maybe so; I guess it all depends on what you call bigotry or ignorance.

I go by the classic definition of bigotry, as in the Merriam Webster dictionary, where a bigot is defined as "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".

The vast majority of those who oppose same-sex marriage do so based on their religious beliefs that homosexuality is an abomination and a sin. For example in California, the campaign for prop 8 which constitutionally banned same-sex marriage was largely backed by the Mormon church. And two other groups largely responsible for voting the proposition into affect were hispanics and blacks - both of whom are traditionally strongly religious groups. So there are your groups that are "obstinately or intolerantly devoted to his or her own opinions and prejudices". And of course their "obstinate opinions" manifested themselves in constitutionally stripping a minority group of basic civil rights, which I'd say falls quite neatly into the category of regarding or treating "the members of a group with hatred and intolerance".

As for ignorance, I again go by the standard definition: "the state or fact of being ignorant : lack of knowledge, education, or awareness"

Where ignorance plays into it is that it doesn't appear to me that many people who oppose same-sex marriage have any idea what it would really mean. Allowing same-sex marriage would ONLY mean that the federal and state governments would legally recognize a same-sex marriage so that they can be afforded the same rights hetero married couples have in regards to filing joint tax returns, inheritances, hell - simply being legally recognized as a family member to your partner. It WON'T mean any private or religious group will be compelled to start performing same sex marriages, or that children will suddenly decide to become gay since it's legal for gays to marry, or that straight marriages will suddenly lose their value, etc. To believe or argue any of these fallacies is ignorance, plain and simple.

Originally Posted by 34958hq439-qjw9v5jq298v5j

When people talk about that, they talk about race hate, the things that led to slavery, and the Holocaust.

"Bigotry" has never been in reference to ethnic hatred alone. That's your own limitation on the definition being introduced.

Originally Posted by 34958hq439-qjw9v5jq298v5j

The issue is more complex than that. Would I rather sit down at a lunch table full of men or women? If I say men, could you ask me "why the men, do you not think men and women are equal?" Of course, but I don't think it's really a fair question.

I can't say I really follow the analogy you're using here about being asked a stupid question in regards to what gender you prefer to sit with. I don't mean that to call you stupid, I just mean that I see no connection between saying you're more comfortable sitting with men and being asked if you think men and women are equal as a result. It has nothing to do with equality.

Originally Posted by 34958hq439-qjw9v5jq298v5j

The reality is that the majority of straight people are not going to understand gay issues well, and pretty much all the gay people are going to be biased on them. I suppose you could call that bigotry and ignorance too, but I don't see it that way.

You're bringing "bias" back into the whole debate again, which I still don't understand. Honestly, it seems that you only invoke "bias" when it's in reference to points that counter your side of the argument. But to respond to your comments, sure, many straight people won't understand gay issues well. So what? Since when does not understanding a minority group's issues well justify stripping them of civil rights? As a middle-class white guy, I can't possibly understand all the issues faced by many African Americans as a result of this country's history of slavery, but I still recognize why they deserve basic civil rights. And sure, gay people are typically going to be "biased" on the issue of same sex marriage because of course they don't want to have their basic civil rights constitutionally banned. Again, so what? Do you believe that because you can call this a "bias", somehow it can be discounted? Aren't cancer patients going to be "biased" towards searching for a cancer cure? Does their "bias" somehow nullify the importance and goodness of their support for a cure? So what does a gay person's bias towards legalizing same sex marriage have to do with anything?