We’ve had this nice little brouhaha going on in the Springfield blogosphere about discrimination and bigotry, specifically as it applies to homosexuals. Simple Thoughts of a Complex Mind and Chatter were discussing the gay marriage issue, which turned into more when the words discrimination and bigot were introduced.
Now it all worked out in the end, that is the flames died down, but there is a bigger issue at work here. At its core, the problem was that when one belief was being called out as being discriminatory, the jump was made that if one is labeled as being discriminatory, then he or she is also a bigot. I bring this up – I fan the flames – because I think that our society frequently confuses the two terms, lumps them together. I think that is a serious mistake that ends discourse and further polarizes people of differing viewpoints.
Discrimination
To discriminate against a person is to treat that individual in way based on that person’s membership in a particular group, class, or category. The treatment can be either positive or negative. The focus is on the action, and the prejudice that results is some type of unfair treatment of a group of people.
Bigotry
Bigotry is very similar to discrimination; however, there is one major difference. With bigotry there is an inherent hatred, or strong dislike, toward a group, class or category, to the point that the person is intolerant of anyone who may side with the group being discriminated against.
The Issue
One can discriminate against a person or entire group and still not be a bigot. This is what happened in our local blogosphere lately. In this instance we had one Blogger, Larry of Simple Thoughts of a Complex was defending his view that homosexuals, as a group, should not be able to marry. Ron at Chatter, had a different point of view and he stated that barring homosexuals from being able to marry like other adults, is in fact discriminatory. The issue exploded over a misinterpretation of the word discrimination to also mean bigotry.
That got me to thinking about the whole issue of discrimination and bigotry. In this case, Larry is discriminating against homosexuals by barring them from marrying. By definition, treating one group of people differently based on their belonging to a particular class or group is discrimination. Bigotry is harder to define as it, in my opinion, involves the subjective determination of hatred or mean spiritedness. I am certain that Larry is not a bigot because I don’t think he hates homosexuals. He just discriminates against them.
We all discriminate to some degree. Our society discriminates against polygamists. We do not allow them to marry more than one person. On a smaller and much less harmful scale, we discriminate against young people and adults everyday by allowing special price discounts to people based on their ages – senior citizens. Bars frequently discriminate against males when they host “ladies nights”. Some of these types of discrimination have less social impacts. I don’t mind that senior citizens get preferential treatment at restaurants, nor do most college males mind “ladies nights” as that just means more females are present for the bar scene. However, by not allowing homosexuals to marry, there are many repercussion and people do indeed get hurt. Those issues have been widely addressed and don’t need to be flushed out here.
To weigh in on the gay marriage issue, I have a real simple solution, which has been stated by many others. Marriage is a religious institution and the government has no business being involved. Marriage certificates should be left up to the churches. The only thing that governments should be sanctioning should be civil unions, thereby giving homosexuals the same legal rights as everyone else. Cry like some may, gay marriage is not part of some liberal agenda to create acceptance of homosexuals. It is, and has always been, an issue of the same legal rights as everyone else, just like the civil rights movement, women’s suffrage and the disability civil rights movement. The same arguments against homosexual marriage are the same arguments that were used against all of these other movements. Keeping marriage as a religious ceremony allows the churches to govern the issue themselves with no long-term legalities. Creating civil unions for all persons allows homosexuals to have the same rights as everyone else and not affect the sanctity of marriage. Any church can choose to honor or not honor a marriage that does not meet their qualifications. I say get rid of government-sanctioned marriage and let people, straight or gay, have civil unions.
Now it all worked out in the end, that is the flames died down, but there is a bigger issue at work here. At its core, the problem was that when one belief was being called out as being discriminatory, the jump was made that if one is labeled as being discriminatory, then he or she is also a bigot. I bring this up – I fan the flames – because I think that our society frequently confuses the two terms, lumps them together. I think that is a serious mistake that ends discourse and further polarizes people of differing viewpoints.
Discrimination
To discriminate against a person is to treat that individual in way based on that person’s membership in a particular group, class, or category. The treatment can be either positive or negative. The focus is on the action, and the prejudice that results is some type of unfair treatment of a group of people.
Bigotry
Bigotry is very similar to discrimination; however, there is one major difference. With bigotry there is an inherent hatred, or strong dislike, toward a group, class or category, to the point that the person is intolerant of anyone who may side with the group being discriminated against.
The Issue
One can discriminate against a person or entire group and still not be a bigot. This is what happened in our local blogosphere lately. In this instance we had one Blogger, Larry of Simple Thoughts of a Complex was defending his view that homosexuals, as a group, should not be able to marry. Ron at Chatter, had a different point of view and he stated that barring homosexuals from being able to marry like other adults, is in fact discriminatory. The issue exploded over a misinterpretation of the word discrimination to also mean bigotry.
That got me to thinking about the whole issue of discrimination and bigotry. In this case, Larry is discriminating against homosexuals by barring them from marrying. By definition, treating one group of people differently based on their belonging to a particular class or group is discrimination. Bigotry is harder to define as it, in my opinion, involves the subjective determination of hatred or mean spiritedness. I am certain that Larry is not a bigot because I don’t think he hates homosexuals. He just discriminates against them.
We all discriminate to some degree. Our society discriminates against polygamists. We do not allow them to marry more than one person. On a smaller and much less harmful scale, we discriminate against young people and adults everyday by allowing special price discounts to people based on their ages – senior citizens. Bars frequently discriminate against males when they host “ladies nights”. Some of these types of discrimination have less social impacts. I don’t mind that senior citizens get preferential treatment at restaurants, nor do most college males mind “ladies nights” as that just means more females are present for the bar scene. However, by not allowing homosexuals to marry, there are many repercussion and people do indeed get hurt. Those issues have been widely addressed and don’t need to be flushed out here.
To weigh in on the gay marriage issue, I have a real simple solution, which has been stated by many others. Marriage is a religious institution and the government has no business being involved. Marriage certificates should be left up to the churches. The only thing that governments should be sanctioning should be civil unions, thereby giving homosexuals the same legal rights as everyone else. Cry like some may, gay marriage is not part of some liberal agenda to create acceptance of homosexuals. It is, and has always been, an issue of the same legal rights as everyone else, just like the civil rights movement, women’s suffrage and the disability civil rights movement. The same arguments against homosexual marriage are the same arguments that were used against all of these other movements. Keeping marriage as a religious ceremony allows the churches to govern the issue themselves with no long-term legalities. Creating civil unions for all persons allows homosexuals to have the same rights as everyone else and not affect the sanctity of marriage. Any church can choose to honor or not honor a marriage that does not meet their qualifications. I say get rid of government-sanctioned marriage and let people, straight or gay, have civil unions.
Posts
2 comments:
Nicely stated. To clarify, Ron did use the term bigotry in his post. It was not my confusion on the difference of bigotry and discrimination.
"You know, the old "hate the sin, love the sinner" argument. Is it ever used to defend any other kind of bigotry? "
I agree with your premise that the state should get out of the Marriage business. Here are a couple of questions for you on this idea. Would the state set any limits on whom or how many couple be involved in the civil unions? Are there age restrictions?
You are right about that Larry, Ron did use the term first. My appologies. As for the rest of it, let me think on it.
Post a Comment