How to decide which instances of opposition to gay marriage are hateful and bigoted.

[cosmosdan]

Originally Posted by Condescending Robot

Your ridiculous attempts to be "civil" to inhuman monsters will look as ridiculous in 50 years as drawing moral distinctions between people who raped their slaves, people who owned slaves but didn't rape them, and people who just defended slavery in the press does now. Either you believe gays are people or you don't; distinctions beyond that are pure metaphysical masturbation.

I wonder if the slaves themselves understood that there was no moral difference between the master that whipped you every day and the master that didn't. I wonder if they had a preference , since there's no difference.

[Der Trihs]

Originally Posted by cosmosdan

That may be philosophically and ideally true , but we as humans are not ideal, and by that standard, we all are scumbags. How does one scumbag judge another scumbag so harshly.

We're scumbags! Why should we care if it's fair to judge people like that?

[cosmosdan]

Originally Posted by Der Trihs

We're scumbags! Why should we care if it's fair to judge people like that?

Well now that you mention it , that makes sense. And self righteous scumbags may be the scummiest of all.

[Condescending Robot]

Originally Posted by cosmosdan

I call bullshit.

That may be philosophically and ideally true , but we as humans are not ideal, and by that standard, we all are scumbags. How does one scumbag judge another scumbag so harshly.

Sorry, I don't subscribe to your horrifying Christian "morality" so I do not believe that "we are all scumbags" (and the consequent abandonment of all values that it leads to, as in your post).

[Condescending Robot]

Originally Posted by cosmosdan

I wonder if the slaves themselves understood that there was no moral difference between the master that whipped you every day and the master that didn't. I wonder if they had a preference , since there's no difference.

Your argument for tolerating anti-gay-marriage people in civilized society should probably not literally be "come on, it will only reduce you to the status of a relatively well-treated slave." You're making my point for me.

[cosmosdan]

Originally Posted by Condescending Robot

Your argument for tolerating anti-gay-marriage people in civilized society should probably not literally be "come on, it will only reduce you to the status of a relatively well-treated slave." You're making my point for me.

I never suggested tolerating anti gay marriage people. I just think equating them to people who bash gays with baseball bats is ridiculous.

Again, I understand it as an ideal philosophical point , but the fact is that real live humans have flaws as well as positive traits. You do, I do , they do. I'll play my role in pointing out the injustice of opposing SSM and call it bigotry because it applies. The goal , I hope, is to improve as a society, not to condemn one another and play comparative flaws by painting others as scumbags.

[cosmosdan]

Originally Posted by Condescending Robot

Sorry, I don't subscribe to your horrifying Christian "morality" so I do not believe that "we are all scumbags" (and the consequent abandonment of all values that it leads to, as in your post).

I am an agnostic not a Christian. I'm speaking about the reality of the human condition. You can single out one issue and condemn others as immoral scumbags if that works for you, but human's are about more than one issue.

If all who don't see it your way are scumbags because of this one issue then we are all scumbags on one moral issue or another, unless you're the only perfect human alive. I feel safe in declaring you aren't.

[MaxTheVool]

Originally Posted by Condescending Robot

There is no difference worth worrying about between opposing gay marriage for any reason and going out with a baseball bat looking for queers; it all requires a denial that sexual minorities are people, and one goes hand in hand with the other in terms of the mentality it creates and condones.

I have to join the chorus of people strongly disagreeing with you.

First of all, opposing gay marriage (particularly if you support gay civil unions, adoption, allowing gays to be teachers and soldiers, etc.) and hitting people with bats aren't even in the same LEAGUE as each other, morally and ethically. Secondly, I am quite sure that there are people who believe gays and lesbians are fully equal human beings, but still oppose gay marriage. I don't think there's any LOGICAL reason to oppose gay marriage, but people believe plenty of stuff that's illogical, and opposing gay marriage without having any desire to kill or hurt gays is one such thing.

[Condescending Robot]

Originally Posted by MaxTheVool

I am quite sure that there are people who believe gays and lesbians are fully equal human beings, but still oppose gay marriage.

How could this sentence even have meaning? By definition, if you want the government to provide a certain benefit to some people and not others, and the have-not class is defined solely by whether they are gay, then you do not believe that gays should be "fully equal." It's getting to the point where we have to just ignore that words have meanings in order to accommodate the ridiculous "be civil to people who want to destroy you" position.

[Gagundathar]

The concept of marriage is very emotionally bound to the heterosexual concept of sex and self (at least in modern day America).
Because of this, the idea of extending marriage to those of the same sex has an emotional quality that must be dealt with. This leads inevitably to situations where heterosexual people who know and accept and even love homosexual people still have an issue with same sex marriage.

It is taking more time than I want it to, but these good people are gradually understanding that their concept of marriage is circumscribed by their own personal expectations.

Hatred for The Other is never a good thing.

[Morgenstern]

Originally Posted by Condescending Robot

There is no difference worth worrying about between opposing gay marriage for any reason and going out with a baseball bat looking for queers; it all requires a denial that sexual minorities are people, and one goes hand in hand with the other in terms of the mentality it creates and condones.

...

Are you saying anyone who opposed SSM, for whatever reason, is no different than someone who actively hunts for members of the G&L community with a baseball bat?

You did a similar thing in the CFA thread when you claimed CFA was out to kill you.

I know people who voted for Prop 8 in California. They were voting their conscious, the same conscious that would prevent them from participating in, or condoning violence towards any human being, regardless of sexual preference.

[Condescending Robot]

Originally Posted by Morgenstern

Are you saying anyone who opposed SSM, for whatever reason, is no different than someone who actively hunts for members of the G&L community with a baseball bat?

You did a similar thing in the CFA thread when you claimed CFA was out to kill you.

I know people who voted for Prop 8 in California. They were voting their conscious, the same conscious that would prevent them from participating in, or condoning violence towards any human being, regardless of sexual preference.

Their conscience (the word fluent English speakers might be looking for here) can go fuck itself. I'm sure every member of the SS was sure that killing Jews was the right thing to do, every 9-11 hijacker knew that Allah was waiting to reward him for his virtue, and so on. Immorality is immorality no matter how sincerely the half-human who thinks it's something else believes in his own horseshit.

Homophobia is homophobia, and in real life, people who are monomaniacal about maintaining marriage inequality are very likely to engage in violence or discrimination against homosexuals in other ways. People love to play characters on the Internet where they are oh-so tolerant but just want gays to have a "civil union" because of some bullshit reason. Those people are being dishonest. They don't really exist when they're not on a liberal Democrat-dominated message board, they vote for every straight-up anti-gay initiative out there, and their opinions and vocabulary change in a mighty way when they are hanging out with the other Christians. You do NOT want to be the gay job applicant or gay child of most of the "I think you should be fully equal except for...." people in this thread, believe me.

[Left Hand of Dorkness]

Originally Posted by Condescending Robot

Homophobia is homophobia, and in real life, people who are monomaniacal about maintaining marriage inequality are very likely to engage in violence or discrimination against homosexuals in other ways.

I love this equivocation--"violence or discrimination." They might be likely to roll their eyes at two gay men kissing, or they might beat up a gay man with a baseball bat, same diff!

Look, most of us agree with you that homophobes show their homophobia in multiple channels. The disagreement we're having is your assertion that there's no significant moral difference between casting a vote like an asshole and beating someone with a baseball bat like an asshole. Both acts are asshole acts, but there's a tremendous difference between them as a matter of degree.

[Morgenstern]

Originally Posted by Condescending Robot

. . .

Homophobia is homophobia, and in real life, people who are monomaniacal about maintaining marriage inequality are very likely to engage in violence or discrimination against homosexuals in other ways. People love to play characters on the Internet where they are oh-so tolerant but just want gays to have a "civil union" because of some bullshit reason. Those people are being dishonest. They don't really exist when they're not on a liberal Democrat-dominated message board, they vote for every straight-up anti-gay initiative out there, and their opinions and vocabulary change in a mighty way when they are hanging out with the other Christians. You do NOT want to be the gay job applicant or gay child of most of the "I think you should be fully equal except for...." people in this thread, believe me.

Your arguments are so tainted with hate that it's impossible to find anything you say credible.

[Condescending Robot]

{To Left Hand of Dorkness): Isn't it just another example of how unseriously gay rights are taken by the self-satisfied liberal set? When some public figure gets caught using the n-word, they are ostracized immediately, without a bunch of bizarre circumlocution about how much better they are than people who actually commit violence against black people. And this is as it should be--racism is unacceptable, period.

Yet, with homophobia, the amount of leeway given is astounding...think marriage rights only belong to straight people? At least he doesn't believe gays are going to hell! Oh wait, he does? Well at least he didn't kick his gay son out of the house! Oh wait, he did? Well at least he didn't kill him! Now presenting this year's winner of the So Awesome For Not Being a Literal Murderer Medal!

I don't draw these distinctions for the same reason other people don't draw them about other forms of bigotry--because the only purpose in doing so is to excuse the inexcusable.

[Condescending Robot]

Originally Posted by Morgenstern

Your arguments are so tainted with hate that it's impossible to find anything you say credible.

I don't know what "hate" means and you don't either, beyond the obvious fact that it's a magic word one can use to avoid a substantive analysis of anything.

[Morgenstern]

You're spewing the same hate you claim the "liberal Christians" are. You're just aiming it at a different target. Such an approach does your cause no good.

[Morgenstern]

Originally Posted by Condescending Robot

I don't know what "hate" means and you don't either, beyond the obvious fact that it's a magic word one can use to avoid a substantive analysis of anything.

You understood it well enough to use it several times in the CFA thread.

[Condescending Robot]

Originally Posted by Morgenstern

You understood it well enough to use it several times in the CFA thread.

Really? Can you link to a post?

Originally Posted by Morgenstern

You're spewing the same hate you claim the "liberal Christians" are. You're just aiming it at a different target. Such an approach does your cause no good.

This is the most inane thing posted in this thread so far, and that's saying something. Like, yeah, I as a homosexual/rational human being dislike homophobes because they have chosen to do evil things! That's not morally equivalent to them disliking me for the reasons they do! If you think it is then you are just Exhibit A in why the idiotic attempts to analyze who "hates" whom as if the concept even had meaning are the worst form of rhetorical gasbagging.

[Left Hand of Dorkness]

Originally Posted by Condescending Robot

{To Left Hand of Dorkness): Isn't it just another example of how unseriously gay rights are taken by the self-satisfied liberal set? When some public figure gets caught using the n-word, they are ostracized immediately, without a bunch of bizarre circumlocution about how much better they are than people who actually commit violence against black people. And this is as it should be--racism is unacceptable, period.

Your analogy is great, in exactly the way you think it isn't. When Michael Richards used the n-word, people said things like "I know he said he's sorry, but he should do something for charity." When a black man is dragged to death, the killer is executed. Nobody but nobody says there's no difference between the two acts.

[magellan01]

Condescending Robot, three questions:

1) How many people in the U.S. do you think have participated in violence toward gays?

2) How many people in the U.S. do you think are against SSM?

3) How do you account for the discrepancy between the two numbers?

[MaxTheVool]

Originally Posted by Condescending Robot

It's getting to the point where we have to just ignore that words have meanings in order to accommodate the ridiculous "be civil to people who want to destroy you" position.

First of all, I'm a straight man who strongly supports gay marriage (and gay rights of all sorts), but the issue clearly doesn't actually directly affect my life at all, so I'm not going to judge the level of passion or anger you feel about the issue. That said, I think you're vastly overstating the issue here.

Here's what I think you're saying: If there's someone like Magellan, whose position is that he's for gay rights in most areas, but opposes gay marriage, your position is that your response to him should not be "well, hey, thanks for supporting us in all the ways you do, and maybe I'll change your mind about this marriage issue now... let's shake hands and be respectful in our discourse", it should be "it's evil and wrong for you to deny us that right, your position is bigoted and UnAmerican". Would you agree with that?

If so, well, I'm not convinced that you're right, either morally or in the practical sense of what position is actually going to help your cause the most. But hey, your reaction is your reaction, and like I said, I'm not in your shoes. So whatever. But where I can't at all agree is when you say to that person "you oppose gay marriage? Well, from that I know that you think gays are subhuman, and you are lying when you say you support any gay rights and all, and you are exactly morally equivalent to someone who goes out with a baseball bat and assaults any queer person he encounters". That's just a crazy overreach, and it bothers me because it just makes our side of the debate look like insane nutbars.

[Condescending Robot]

My position in that particular post is definitely "saying people can believe gays are 'FULLY EQUAL' (the words of the poster i was responding to) while opposing gay marriage is nonsensical." Furthermore, I do not believe for one second that magellan actually "supports gay rights in most areas."

[cosmosdan]

Originally Posted by Condescending Robot

{To Left Hand of Dorkness):

I don't draw these distinctions for the same reason other people don't draw them about other forms of bigotry--because the only purpose in doing so is to excuse the inexcusable.

Yet humans have made that difference apparent in our legal system for quite some time. We don't arrest people for being ignorant bigots or misguided religious zealots. We do for assault, and there's a different charge for murder. We clearly see them as morally different.

[Morgenstern]

Originally Posted by Morgenstern

You understood it [hate] well enough to use it several times in the CFA thread.

( "hate" added for continuity)

Originally Posted by Condescending Robot

Really? Can you link to a post?

Sure.

Originally Posted by Condescending Robot

On the one hand, they want to kill me.
On the other hand, I don't like that.

Since we both commit the apparently cardinal sin of "hate" by not liking something (they don't like my continued breathing, I don't like their attempts to murder me) we're morally equal and the truth is in the middle.

Great logic from whichever dumbass group (Christians, the sort of liberal "allies" who are all for gay rights unless it requires ever doing anything or opposing anyone, concern trolls) you represent.

[tomndebb]

Please note that the preceding post is quoted from The BBQ Pit. Please do not report it as a Great Debates violation.

In the future, if someone wishes to point to a message from the BBQ Pit that includes personal insults, it would be better to simply link to it rather than quoting it in a forum that does not permit insults.

[ /Moderating ]

[Condescending Robot]

Originally Posted by Morgenstern

( "hate" added for continuity)



Sure.

I don't know how much more clear that post could be as a mocking of the "whatever hate is, it's the worst thing you can possibly engage in, therefore hating bigots is just as bad as hating gays" school of thought, rather than the earnest invocation of the "hate" argument that you are presenting it as.

[Morgenstern]

In case you really don't know, let's look at what Merriam-Webster has to say about hate.

a : intense hostility and aversion usually deriving from fear, anger, or sense of injury


As a reader, I don't like seeing hate on either side of an argument.

I'm a liberal Christian, and you know what? I don't even own a baseball bat.

[MaxTheVool]

Originally Posted by Condescending Robot

My position in that particular post is definitely "saying people can believe gays are 'FULLY EQUAL' (the words of the poster i was responding to) while opposing gay marriage is nonsensical." Furthermore, I do not believe for one second that magellan actually "supports gay rights in most areas."

I still think that's a bit oversimplified. For instance, I'm perfectly content with there being laws in place against incestuous marriage, but if there's a brother and sister who want to live together romantically, and are lobbying for the right to marry each other, which I might well oppose, that would not necessarily mean that I would view them as the slightest bit less than 100% worthy of full rights and respect in all other contexts. Same for consenting and non-abusive polygamous relationships, or some performance artist who wants to legally marry her toaster. I do not believe that any of them should have the legal right to marriage right now, but all of them are just as human and important as I am.

Which isn't to say that I don't agree that there's a lot of overlap between people who truly do look down on gays and people who oppose gay marriage... but I think your view of the situations is comically binary. There's a huge huge difference between saying something about "many" or "most" of a group, and saying it about all of that group...


(As for whether Magellan actually supports gay rights in other areas... well, if he doesn't, he's done an amazingly good job of maintaining a consistent, if logically baffling, facade for years and years despite an awful lot of vitriol slung his way. And I have to say that if he in fact opposes lots of gay rights, it's a bit unclear to me what his motive would be in pretending he supports all but one of them, but then prominently popping up in every thread about the other one and arguing about it at nauseating length.)


(And by the way, are you backing off from your claim that opposing gay marriage is morally equivalent to going out with a baseball bat looking for gay people to beat?)

[Condescending Robot]

"It's OK to be against gay equality, just look at all of these examples comparing gays to polygamists and incestuous brother-sister couples!"

[MaxTheVool]

Originally Posted by Condescending Robot

"It's OK to be against gay equality, just look at all of these examples comparing gays to polygamists and incestuous brother-sister couples!"

You know, I almost stuck in a disclaimer saying "by the way, I'm not in any way suggesting that being gay is similar to any of these things", but I figured that it wasn't necessary. Apparently I was mistaken. You are the one saying "if someone is against gay marriage, that directly and necessarily implies that they don't think gay people are equal and worthy human beings", or words to that effect. I came up with an example where I am against someone having the right to marry, but do not think they are unequal or unworthy. This example, by its existence, proves that your logic is insufficient, without at all comparing being gay with being a performance artist.

Please try actually responding to substance of what I wrote. Oh, and keep in mind that I am strongly pro-gay-marriage, and can link to many threads on this board in which I have argued that position at great length.

[Condescending Robot]

If your pro-marriage position comes from some sort of amoral apathy where you think homosexuality is OK because you're OK with incest and polygamy too, then I suppose I'll take your vote (rather than trying to use phrenology and aura reading to determine your motivations like the "the only thing that matters is whether the person is engaging in 'hate'" crowd) but I'll still be rather uneasy about where that leads.

Homosexuality is moral and deserving of equal treatment because it's something that sane people can do to achieve their happiness, not because every conceivable form of sex or relationships is free of judgment. I do, in fact, disapprove of incest and polygamy, because they're things that only damaged people do (and in the latter case, your invocation of a "non-abusive polygamous relationship" is a counterfactual that ignores the main issue with polygamy, namely that it's nearly always a situation involving one middle-aged male and several underage girls).

I don't want any kind of moral relativism, whether it's the above or the "tolerant Christian" throwing in the gays with the murderers and the rapists to show how awesome he is for not judging us. Vote the right way and shut up, if this is your belief system.

[Der Trihs]

Originally Posted by MaxTheVool

Which isn't to say that I don't agree that there's a lot of overlap between people who truly do look down on gays and people who oppose gay marriage...

An overlap of 100% percent. There is no motivation at all to do so except bigotry and catering to bigotry. It is pure unmitigated evil, hate for the sake of hate. Which is why when asked for a non-hateful, rational reason the bigots and their defenders fail to come up with one and just instead insist that one must exist. Which is what you are doing; insisting that some people must have a perfectly rational, ethical reason to oppose SSM - but failing to come up with an example of what such a reason might be.

Originally Posted by MaxTheVool

(And by the way, are you backing off from your claim that opposing gay marriage is morally equivalent to going out with a baseball bat looking for gay people to beat?)

It's not, but it's close. The difference IMHO is mostly fear of the law or an unwillingness to get their own hands dirty rather than any real moral scruples. Most of the ones opposing SSM probably wouldn't personally beat some homosexual; but the great majority I'm sure would look the other way, and/or in private talk about how the "pervert" deserved it.

Originally Posted by MaxTheVool

You know, I almost stuck in a disclaimer saying "by the way, I'm not in any way suggesting that being gay is similar to any of these things", but I figured that it wasn't necessary. Apparently I was mistaken.

You were. Given that neither you nor anyone else can come up with a reasonable, ethical reason to oppose SSM, bringing up incest and so forth is almost always an attempt to equate them. I'm a little surprised you didn't bring up bestiality or pedophilia; those are favorites.

[Morgenstern]

Originally Posted by Der Trihs

. . .

It's not, but it's close. The difference IMHO is mostly fear of the law or an unwillingness to get their own hands dirty rather than any real moral scruples. Most of the ones opposing SSM probably wouldn't personally beat some homosexual; but the great majority I'm sure would look the other way, and/or in private talk about how the "pervert" deserved it.

. . .

Really? The "great majority" (those who voted against ssm) of of Americans are like that? I'd like a cite on that because I find the "great majority" of Americans are peaceful, law abiding citizens who abhor violence, of any kind, towards any person or group.

[Der Trihs]

Originally Posted by Morgenstern

Really? The "great majority" of of Americans are like that? I'd like a cite on that because I find the "great majority" of Americans are peaceful, law abiding citizens who abhor violence, of any kind, towards any person or group.

Say what? This is a country that supports aggressive wars, cares little about police brutality, has an abiding faith that guns can solve all problems, and has a death penalty. Americans have a positive fetish for violence.

[Condescending Robot]

Originally Posted by Der Trihs

Say what? This is a country that supports aggressive wars, cares little about police brutality, has an abiding faith that guns can solve all problems, and has a death penalty. Americans have a positive fetish for violence.

To be fair, guns can solve homophobic violence if enough gays have them!

Ah, my two pet issues on the board, together at last...

[MaxTheVool]

Originally Posted by Der Trihs

Which is what you are doing; insisting that some people must have a perfectly rational, ethical reason to oppose SSM - but failing to come up with an example of what such a reason might be.

No, I am stating that it is entirely possible that people have a reason that they THINK is rational and ethical, which is a crucial distinction.

You were. Given that neither you nor anyone else can come up with a reasonable, ethical reason to oppose SSM, bringing up incest and so forth is almost always an attempt to equate them. I'm a little surprised you didn't bring up bestiality or pedophilia; those are favorites.

Let me try to spell this out for you one more time... I know you're a smart guy when you stop and actually think and read rather than knee-jerk reacting. Condescending Robot (who is, in fact, extremely condescending, and thus a well named poster) made the claim (or at least I think he did, if I misinterpreted what he was saying, he was free to point that out) that someone opposing gay marriage must necessarily view gays as lesser. In other words, he says that if person A opposes legal marriage for group X, that proves that person A views members of group X as lesser.

I disagree with that claim. How would I go about disproving it? Well, the easiest way is to come up with an example where a person opposes legal marriage for a group but does NOT view them as lesser. The easiest person for me to talk about is me, so for what groups do I disapprove of legal marriage? Honestly, there aren't that many. So I came up with a few. That disproved CR's claim.

At no point at all did I propose any sort of equivalency, moral or legal, between any of the groups I mentioned and gays. CR made an overbroad point. I came up with a counterexample to disprove his point. That was all that happened.


You do realize, I hope, that it is possible to make logically flawed arguments in support of a "good" position. That is what I believe CR is doing.

[Bosstone]

Originally Posted by MaxTheVool

I came up with an example where I am against someone having the right to marry, but do not think they are unequal or unworthy.

Except that circumstances around incestuous couples are not the same as circumstances around polygamous arrangements are not the same as circumstances around SSM. There are different issues with each, and there are rational reasons for restricting the former two that say nothing about the quality of the people involved (not to get into a debate about them, just to mention a couple: the risk to potential children and the legal quagmires, respectively).

By contrast, we've yet to see a single argument against SSM that isn't rooted in one of two things: a Biblical injunction against homosexuality, in which case people who practice SSM are sinners, or the belief that marriage must encompass certain things such as childbirth, which proves to be a double standard when restricting opposite-sex marriage for the same reasons is not palatable. There's also a magellan minority that simply, blindly asserts that marriage objectively and immutably means 'a union between one man and one woman, no more, no less, no substitutions'. One position is a religious belief that shouldn't be passed into law without a corresponding rational/secular reason, one position absolutely does treat gay people as different from straight, and one position is, to put it kindly, lacking a working understanding of humans.

None of this should be taken to imply that I agree with CR that merely voicing opposition to SSM is as bad as beating a gay person to death with a baseball bat. I just want to point out that incest and polygamy are too different from SSM to use them as good examples.

[Morgenstern]

Originally Posted by Condescending Robot

To be fair, guns can solve homophobic violence if enough gays have them!

Ah, my two pet issues on the board, together at last...

Who are you going to shoot, the woman in the CFA drive through window, or the Christian masses? I think your hate extends far beyond a few assholes who really have waived a baseball bat at a SS couple.

[Condescending Robot]

Originally Posted by Morgenstern

Who are you going to shoot, the woman in the CFA drive through window, or the Christian masses? I think your hate extends far beyond a few assholes who really have waived a baseball bat at a SS couple.

You keep insisting that "hate" is a meaningful concept or that I am somehow concerned with you using this magic word to describe my position. What can I do to disabuse you of either notion? I promise I won't shoot you.

[Der Trihs]

Originally Posted by MaxTheVool

No, I am stating that it is entirely possible that people have a reason that they THINK is rational and ethical, which is a crucial distinction.

Not when it requires willful self delusions to convince yourself that such "reasons" are either ethical or reasonable. You might as well claim that someone who tortures someone to convert them to their religion isn't a bad person, as long as they genuinely think it's reasonable to do so.

And I note that you still haven't come up with any such reason.

Originally Posted by MaxTheVool

I disagree with that claim. How would I go about disproving it? Well, the easiest way is to come up with an example where a person opposes legal marriage for a group but does NOT view them as lesser. The easiest person for me to talk about is me, so for what groups do I disapprove of legal marriage? Honestly, there aren't that many. So I came up with a few. That disproved CR's claim.

No it doesn't because there are actual rational and/or ethical arguments to be made for opposing those varieties of marriage. Opposition to SSM is much more close in nature to opposition to interracial marriage. It's about hatred and bigotry, and nothing else.

[MaxTheVool]

Originally Posted by Bosstone

Except that circumstances around incestuous couples are not the same as circumstances around polygamous arrangements are not the same as circumstances around SSM. There are different issues with each, and there are rational reasons for restricting the former two that say nothing about the quality of the people involved (not to get into a debate about them, just to mention a couple: the risk to potential children and the legal quagmires, respectively).

Sure, but if CR actually believes that anyone who opposes gay marriage must necessarily view gays as lesser, then the onus is on him to make an argument to support that position, one that actually refers to the specifics of the gay marriage debate. Instead, he just made an overbroad claim, stated his general principle that opposing-legal-marriage automatically meant views-them-as-lesser, and strode briskly away.


Note, by the way, that I'm not sure there's a necessary connection between "opposes marriage for them" and "views them as lesser" in either direction... for a century after the civil war, blacks were quite explicitly and legally second class citizens in many parts of the US, but were certainly allowed to marry (each other) for that entire time. And whites were just as forbidden from marrying blacks as blacks were from marrying whites during that time. It would be entirely logically consistent (albeit hateful and bigoted) for someone to support legalizing gay marriage while at the same time believing gays should not be allowed to be teachers or doctors or serve in the government, or something of that sort. (Granted, I've never actually encountered anyone who holds that viewpoint, but there's nothing internally inconsistent about it.)

[Condescending Robot]

Originally Posted by MaxTheVool

Sure, but if CR actually believes that anyone who opposes gay marriage must necessarily view gays as lesser, then the onus is on him to make an argument to support that position, one that actually refers to the specifics of the gay marriage debate.

"I think there should be rights that straight people have but gay people don't" *IS*, by definition, a statement of inequality or putting one group above the another; your obstinate refusal to admit this simple definitional truism does not mean I did not put forth the point.

[cosmosdan]

Originally Posted by Condescending Robot

I don't know how much more clear that post could be as a mocking of the "whatever hate is, it's the worst thing you can possibly engage in, therefore hating bigots is just as bad as hating gays" school of thought, rather than the earnest invocation of the "hate" argument that you are presenting it as.

Sounds crazy and quite absurd, doesn't it? Hating bigots is morally the same as hating homosexuals.

Your assertion that not granting marriage equality is the same as violent physical assault sounds equally absurd.

[cosmosdan]

Originally Posted by MaxTheVool

Sure, but if CR actually believes that anyone who opposes gay marriage must necessarily view gays as lesser, then the onus is on him to make an argument to support that position, one that actually refers to the specifics of the gay marriage debate. Instead, he just made an overbroad claim, stated his general principle that opposing-legal-marriage automatically meant views-them-as-lesser, and strode briskly away.


Note, by the way, that I'm not sure there's a necessary connection between "opposes marriage for them" and "views them as lesser" in either direction... for a century after the civil war, blacks were quite explicitly and legally second class citizens in many parts of the US, but were certainly allowed to marry (each other) for that entire time. And whites were just as forbidden from marrying blacks as blacks were from marrying whites during that time. It would be entirely logically consistent (albeit hateful and bigoted) for someone to support legalizing gay marriage while at the same time believing gays should not be allowed to be teachers or doctors or serve in the government, or something of that sort. (Granted, I've never actually encountered anyone who holds that viewpoint, but there's nothing internally inconsistent about it.)

someone else made that same point earlier in the thread. If it's not viewing gays as somehow less , less deserving of exactly the same legal rights , then what is it?
It may the product of generations of ignorance and indoctrination about gays being perverts , but if somewhere in your heart and mind you don't believe they should be married, then it seems obvious that you must view them as less.

Or, from another angle, why does protecting your perceived definition of a word, and a social institution take priority over defending equality for your fellow citizens?

[cosmosdan]

Originally Posted by MaxTheVool

No, I am stating that it is entirely possible that people have a reason that they THINK is rational and ethical, which is a crucial distinction.
.

Sure. People who believe in a 6000 year old earth think they are rational too. Where do we set the boundaries for what is rational. Shouldn't opinions about how our laws function have some grounding in facts and reason? If your opinion has no grounding in any facts whatsoever, I'd say it's safe to call it irrational. If you're unwilling to look at the facts and give them thoughtful reasoning and consideration, that's irrational.

[magellan01]

Originally Posted by cosmosdan

Sure. People who believe in a 6000 year old earth think they are rational too. Where do we set the boundaries for what is rational. Shouldn't opinions about how our laws function have some grounding in facts and reason? If your opinion has no grounding in any facts whatsoever, I'd say it's safe to call it irrational. If you're unwilling to look at the facts and give them thoughtful reasoning and consideration, that's irrational.

How does one conclude that a 6,000 year earth is not rational?

[tomndebb]

Originally Posted by magellan01

How does one conclude that a 6,000 year earth is not rational?

When all the physical evidence argues, rationally, against it.

[MaxTheVool]

Originally Posted by cosmosdan

Sure. People who believe in a 6000 year old earth think they are rational too. Where do we set the boundaries for what is rational. Shouldn't opinions about how our laws function have some grounding in facts and reason? If your opinion has no grounding in any facts whatsoever, I'd say it's safe to call it irrational. If you're unwilling to look at the facts and give them thoughtful reasoning and consideration, that's irrational.

You are responding to something that I did not say.

I support gay marriage. I've never heard an argument against gay marriage that I thought held any water at all. I believe gay marriage should be legal everywhere.

What I am trying to discuss, however, is the motives of those who oppose gay marriage. Several posters in this thread, notably Condescending Robot and Der Trihs are making what I believe to be unqualified, overbroad, unjustified statements in which they are assigning motives to ALL gay marriage opponents.

Now, I have very little respect, or time, for people who oppose gay marriage. I'm quite confident that a lot of them are in fact true bigots, people who hate and fear gays, who believe that gays should be legally barred from adopting, being teachers, serving in the military, and so forth; and some of those are even the kind of people who would, as CR so eloquently put it, go out with a baseball bat looking for queers to hit.

But I'm pretty sure that, as with basically every other facet of the human experience, there's a bell curve. On the "bad" end, you have a very small number of people who actively seek out and hurt gay people, a larger number of people who don't do that but are willing to look the other way, a still larger number who wouldn't condone or tolerate violence against gays but are OK with strong legal restrictions, and so forth. On the "good" end, there's all the people who do support gay marriage (which probably some subdivisions of various sorts in there), followed by people who support full rights of all sorts other than marriage, and support civil unions (ie, the Magellan position), etc.

I have two important points to make about this:
(1) To use the same word ("bigot", "hatred") to describe people way off on the bad side of the bell curve and people who are on the good side (but not quite supporting gay marriage) renders those words close to meaningless. (Ironic, considering that Magellan's entire argument against gay marriage has to do with some vague thing involving rendering words meaningless). There's very little point in having a word which describes both the monsters who tortured and killed Matthew Sheperd, and Barack Obama as of 6 months ago.

(2) The best thing about this whole issue is that we're winning, because public opinion is turning slowly but surely in our direction. Every year a few more percentage points of Americans support gay marriage. Part of that, of course, is old people dying and young people being raised to be more tolerant. But part of it is people changing their mind. Every year, hundreds of thousands (if not millions) of Americans change from "no" to "yes" when asked if they think if SSM should be legal. That means that out there in the US right now are tens of thousands of people who currently, if asked, would say that they oppose gay marriage, but are so close to changing their minds that they'll answer differently in a month or two. How does that accord with those of you who describe the issue so starkly that anyone who currently answers "no" is a vicious hateful bigot? (There's also the practical political consideration that in order to get SSM legal you need to win elections, and in order to win elections you need to convince people, and calling people hateful bigots is probably not the best way to convince them... although I realize that taking that line of argument too far leads to a "hey, just sit there politely in the back of the bus and wait your turn like a good little gay boy" attitude...)

[MaxTheVool]

Originally Posted by Der Trihs

Not when it requires willful self delusions to convince yourself that such "reasons" are either ethical or reasonable. You might as well claim that someone who tortures someone to convert them to their religion isn't a bad person, as long as they genuinely think it's reasonable to do so.

And I note that you still haven't come up with any such reason.

Unless I'm utterly misunderstanding what you're saying, you're saying one of the weirdest and most obviously preposterous things I've ever seen anyone on the SDMB say.

45%+ of Americans currently oppose gay marriage. I'm going to go way out on a limb and say that the HUGE majority of those Americans BELIEVE that they have a logical, rational and ethical reason for that position. You and I know that they are wrong, but they BELIEVE that they are right.

I mean, those people exist, and they have their beliefs, and if you ask them why, they will say SOMETHING, and if you say "is what you just said logical?" they will certainly answer in the affirmative.

I'm baffled that you would think otherwise...