It's not? Where do you think rights come from? The question of who has rights to do what is the central question of politics. Pretending that questions of rights are not questions of politics is a sleight-of-hand move that is designed to put your opponents on the defensive and reverse the burden of proof.
Politics is the debate of honest ideas and philosophies regarding governing. Arguing whether a given right should be granted to certain groups of people based on race, sex, creed, or sexual orientation is not about governing.
> Arguing whether a given right should be granted to certain groups of people based on race, sex, creed or sexual orientation is not about governing
It's not? What is it then? Where do you think rights come from? Rights only exist insofar as government guarantees those rights. I only have the right to life because the are police and armed forces who guarantee that right to me. I only have the right to liberty because the Constitution, via the fourth, fifth, eighth and fourteenth amendments, restricts what the government can do to me.
The question of who does or does not get rights, and how those rights are adjudicated when they conflict is an inherently political question. It is the root of a philosophical debate that goes back to Ancient Greece. To claim it is not political is to remove the all questions of ethics from politics. It is to reduce politics to a mere math problem, solvable by technocrats.
If I'm stuck on a deserted island, dying of thirst, will my right to life grant me a rainstorm? If I'm stranded in the Alaskan wilderness, dying of hypothermia, is my right to life going to magically conjure a fire? If a warlord invades my village, and puts a sword at my throat, will my right to life stay his hand? Every right is an obligation insofar as there has to be an enforcement mechanism to guarantee that right. That enforcement mechanism is government, governments are controlled by politics, and thus the question of who has which rights is inherently political.
> Throughout history, farmers haven't really fucked with each other
The actual history of the world begs to differ. The inception of agriculture is contemporaneous with the inception of large scale wars for a reason. Hunter gatherer bands may fight, but their fights are usually small scale, both because the bands themselves are small (not very many resources to fight with) and because they have the option of moving (nothing worth fighting for). Farming communities, with their higher population densities, both have the resources to fight larger scale battles, and reason to fight.
Saying gay people shouldn't get married isn't a political opinion, it is you said it first, just hating arbitrarily a randomly assigned group of people.
Are you suggesting it's the same ballpark as saying "I don't like the current elected official?"
And people wonder why politics is so divisive now. It’s not longer about disagreeing with someone, it’s about painting them as immoral and not worth engaging.
Have concerns about immigration levels? You hate immigrants and that’s wrong.
Worried about crime? You hate minorities and that’s wrong.
Worried about government spending on welfare? You hate the poor and that’s wrong.
Can they? As I recall, many were arguing the exact opposite when Brendan Eich decided to voice some political opinions during the 2014 elections.
Or is it just that CEOs can have political opinions only when they happen to agree with yours?