I posted the definition earlier to point out, it’s not hatred, it’s bigotry.
adjective
1.
having or revealing an obstinate belief in the superiority of one’s own opinions and a prejudiced intolerance of the opinions of others.
The problem with this definition is that it would, by definition, imply that every belief concerning obligatory moral principles would be “intolerant” precisely because moral principles would supercede or “be superior” to opinions to the contrary.
It would be impossible to hold any kind of “moral” position because every moral position - given that moral beliefs are by definition, obligatory (and so allowing no tolerance) - would be, ipso facto, bigoted because anyone holding a moral position would claim such a position to be superior and intolerant to all immoral opinions to the contrary.
Your point is nothing less than an argument for moral relativism and against any possible supreme moral position. It assumes no one is right and every position is merely an opinion.
Obstinate and prejudiced intolerance are think are important qualifiers. It’s not simply a difference of opinion.
Slavery isn’t a good analogy. A slave isn’t a willing participant. People in gay marriages are. No one is forced to get gay married.
Ah, yes, but business owners ARE being forced to provide a product they, in good conscience, are unwilling to provide. They are unwilling participants in what they view as an immoral business activity: providing goods their conscience is telling them they are not to provide. They are being forced to provide these against their will. These business owners are not forcing anyone to not be “gay” they are simply voicing a moral objection to the very idea that “marriage” can be so reinterpreted.
What you seem to be up to is attempting to re-categorize a moral position as “bigoted” in order to dismiss it. Again, by your definition of bigoted, every moral position that disagrees with yours could be categorized as bigoted merely because it differs from yours.
Unfortunately for you, however, you are not immune from the charge of bigoted since your position remains “bigoted” under your definition because you, too, are showing “an obstinate belief in the superiority of one’s own opinions and a prejudiced intolerance of the opinions of others” regarding your opinion of traditional marriage.
I can affirm gay marriage and it doesn’t disparage or negate other forms of marriage, so I think making a case for intolerance is hard to make. It is more inclusive not less. There is room for many forms of marriage Catholic Marriage, Protestant Marriage, Jewish marriage, Muslim marriage, and Civil marriage, gay and straight.
Every other form of marriage you list has one distinctive trait - the possibility of creating new life, whether that life be Catholic, Protestant, Jewish, Moslem or “civil.” We are not talking about being more inclusive to a workable definition of marriage, we are speaking of redefining to the point of making it unrecognizable.
I have challenged others in these fora before to provide a definition of marriage that includes same sex couples that does not open, by definition, marriage to two brothers, two sisters, mother-daughter, father-son, and a host of other unsavory possibilities. Marriage simply becomes a meaningless reality - which is, I suggest, the goal of the proponents of redefinition.
You are welcome to provide a definition of marriage that doesn’t make marriage a meaningless legal term.
It’s not as if every time a gay couple is married a heterosexual couple has to get divorced or are not allowed to marry in the first place.
The problem is with the redefinition itself which will result in a complete loss of any legal protection to the biological capacity of two human beings to create new life. You may not see any value in that, but that simply means you don’t understand why such a capacity requires legal safeguard. That is clear from the mere fact you are defending redefinition.
That’s how I am able to have a civil discussion about it.
