My last post apparently offended a blogosphere colleague. Sorry, but I call 'em like I see 'em. It seems there are some who take issue with my practice of using the term "bigot" to describe those opposed to gay rights. If I understand the objection correctly, I (and other proponents of gay rights) use the term "bigot" in an attempt to silence the opposition. Ah, the old "oppressors become the oppressed" argument. I'll respectfully disagree. My intent isn't to silence but to define an opinion espoused by a group of people as intolerant and prejudiced. According to Merriam-Webster Online, the definition of a bigot is "a person obstinately or intolerantly devoted to his or her own opinions and prejudices." I believe I'm using the term properly.
Let's be honest here, the majority of the resistance to gay rights isn't based on anything other than religious. The entire debate regarding genetics or choice is an attempt to obfuscate the real motivation behind various intitiatives, referendums, and constitutional amendments. Grounded in their religious belief that homosexuality is wrong, most conservatives feel the need to try and legislate their morality on the rest of us. Based on religious ideology, some people feel justified in what I see as intolerance. Those opposed to gay rights are absolutely entitled to their opinion and beliefs, just as I'm entitled to mine. Those opposed to gay rights can keep preaching about an ideology of evil, the danger to the institution of marriage, and the erosion of public morality. All the while, I'll keep pointing out the intolerant spirit of those opinions.
There will always be a percentage of our population, maybe a majority of our population, that doesn't agree with same sex marriage. That doesn't mean the majoriy opinion is right.
I guess that's the thing that bothers me the most about this entire debate. Where does anyone get the idea that they have the right to tell two people who love one another that they can't enter the legal state of marriage? That absolutely mystifies me. Why is that anyone's business other than the two people who apply for the license? We're not talking the religious sacrament of marriage, folks; the religious aspect is something entirely different and should be left up to the respective belief systems. Speaking of which, I'm a legally ordained minister and will be happy to bless any same sex couple. I wish I could grant the legal state, but that's out of my power.
I think I'll just leave the argument that homosexuality is some kind of genetic defect in need of "treatment" alone. Talk about pathologizing someone's sexual identity.
1 comment:
I fear I'm about to throw gasoline onto an open flame with this comment, but....
It seems to me that there are few people as obstinately devoted to their own opinions - and as intolerant of those who disagree with them, incidentally - as those who habitually use the word "bigot". Ironic, eh?
I think part of the problem is that most people who use the B-word don't use it in the academic sense as you have defined it. They probably don't even know that that's what the word really means.
Over that last few years, I've noticed that the vast majority of people who use the word "bigot", whether in blogs, in campaign literature, or in the media, use it to mean "someone who doesn't agree with my opinion about sexuality".
I always want to say to such people, "You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means."
Post a Comment