Should supporters of man-woman marriage be labelled bigots?

A look at the 'arguments' against equality.

In this series we are going to have a look at The Australian "Christian" Lobby (ACL), a political anti-gay group, as with a vote on equality looming, they are exploding with nonsensical vitriol and hate speech.

 This will be the last one in this series I hope. Not because the ACL are not providing adequate material, its just that their feeble arguments have nothing to do with equal marriage and its boring me.

2 June 2015

“The Australian Christian Lobby was today concerned at the intolerance and vandalism being shown to conscientious objectors of same-sex marriage and call for a mature public debate.”

Intolerance; well in episode 3 I did give the ACL the Hypocrite award, and they continue to prove they have earned it. Perhaps those in glass houses should refrain from throwing stones?

Conscientious objectors? Really? checking the definition we see that label does not apply, unless the ACL is calling for war against Homosexuals and those who want equality?

“Those of us who in good faith do not support changing the definition of marriage are tired of being called bigots and other names,” ACL Managing Director Lyle Shelton said.

While I dispute that anyone can be opposed to equal rights “in good faith” I wonder if he is supporting the 2004 change to the definition of marriage, because this proposed legislation kind of voids that, I am obviously being flippant just as he is obviously being misleading with his comment to not be in support of changing our definitions of marriage.

The biggest thing here is if he is tired of being called a bigot, he simply needs to stop being one. We can’t do that for him, if he stops being bigoted I am sure people would stop pointing out that he is a bigot.

“I’ve got thick skin and these attacks are water off a duck’s back however there are millions of Australians who for religious and cultural reasons will never accept a redefinition of marriage.”

After complaining about being labelled a bigot he then goes on to describe anti-equality campaigners in terns that make it clear they are bigots.

“They would be forgiven for thinking these acts of vandalism and abuse are just a foretaste of what is to come if Australia redefines marriage.”

I’ll just leave this here shall I?

“This debate must be conducted in a climate of free speech and civility where the contrary arguments can be put and given a fair hearing.”

What debate? Should Australians have equal rights? I believe there is a difference between free speech and hate speech. I do not find the ACL’s comments or objections to me having equal rights to be at all civil. As I have demonstrated in this program, there are no real contrary arguments.

 

“Sadly we have seen in other countries that have redefined marriage that people who hold fast to the natural and timeless understanding of marriage have faced legal punishment for living out their conscientious beliefs.”

Really, you only just finished saying you wanted to be civil and speak 'in good faith'. Marriage has changed definition, between cultures, and withing religions, our own marriage act was changed to exclude homosexuals in 2004, that’s not timeless, it is difficult to remain civil with someone who is arguing that you should not have equal rights and is being incredibly disingenuous.  And to correct that statement further, bigots have faced legal action for discriminating against persecuted minorities, as it should be.

“Bill Shorten needs to guarantee that there will be protections for the millions of Australians who disagree with his plan to redefine marriage and family.”

I am sure people will be exempt from marrying couples on any grounds, and where did family’s come from. The legislation doesn’t change the definition of family; homosexuals come from, form, and exist in families today. 

Should supporters of man-woman marriage be labelled bigots?

No of course they shouldn't. However if those same people are against a race, ethnicity, gender, religion, sexuality or other subset of the community having equal rights, then of course they should be labelled bigots, because they fit the definition.
If you don't want to fit the definition then you need to change your behavior.

Bigot; 

Merrium- Webster, 

 A person who strongly and unfairly dislikes other people, ideas, etc. : a bigoted person; especially : a person who hates or refuses to accept the members of a particular group (such as a racial or religious group).

Conscientious objection:  

Dictionary.com

Refusal on moral or religious grounds to bear arms in a military conflict or to serve in the armed forces.

Civil 

(google definitions)
Courteous and polite.

 'In good faith"   

Fairfax dictionary

Honesty; a sincere intention to deal fairly with others.

Hypocrite

dictionary.com

a person who pretends to have virtues, moral or religious beliefs, principles, etc., that he or she does not actually possess, especially a person whose actions belie stated beliefs.

a person who feigns some desirable or publicly approved attitude, especially one whose private life, opinions, or statements belie his or her public statements.