# Fuck You, Prop 8 Supporters! Also: Fuck You, Dishonest News Media **URL:** \ **Category:** The BBQ Pit\ **Created:** [August 6, 2010, 6:15pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/fuck-you-prop-8-supporters-also-fuck-you-dishonest-news-media/549433 "2010-08-06T18:15:34Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 16
**Author:** ![Polycarp](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/82dd89/32.png) [@Polycarp](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Polycarp)\ **Post date:** [August 21, 2010, 3:21am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/fuck-you-prop-8-supporters-also-fuck-you-dishonest-news-media/549433/301 "2010-08-21T03:21:12Z")
> [@The\_Tao\_s\_Revenge](#): > > > [@raindog](#): > > > > There is a distinct difference between a _good_ reason, and an _irrational_ reason. > > > > Only _blindness_---------the result of the _certainty_ of one’s beliefs\* ------ or _ignorance_ can have someone as confused as you appear to be. > > > > Listen, I disagree with much of what **Liberal** and **Polycarp** have to say. Still, I can’t remember anything they’ve said that I would characterize as _irrational_, or _illogical._ (two words that are rarely used correctly here) They are thoughtful, intelligent, _logical_ and _rational_ in their views/posts. > > > > And, in my view, _wrong_ a fair amount of the time. That’s not to say that there isn’t illogical or irrational arguments to be made from any position. IMV, **Der Tris** is most often irrational in his posts. So…any given person can make a rational or irrational argument from many points of discussion. > > > > So in [theoretical] situations where **Liberal, Polycarp and Der Tris** may hold the same [end] view, I can make a distinction between what I perceive to be a rational and irrational argument for that view, _even if in the end I perceive them both to wrong._ > > > > IIRC, I seem to remember that **Bricker** made the mistake in those threads of not not advocating for Prop 8----after all he is pro-SSM----but for not demonizing the anti-SSM crowd. In a strange twist he ended up intellectually homeless. On the one hand he didn’t belong in the Prop 8 crowd. On the other, by asserting that he could see a _rational_, \*logical \* argument for anti-SSM--------even though not _compelling_ enough for him to support--------he ended up attacked anyway. _He was forced to argue for the rationality for a policy he didn’t even support!_ > > > > It’s worth repeating: He wasn’t arguing for Prop 8, but rather it’s [potential, in some contexts] _rationality._ That’s a fool’s game, IMV. Because in my observation that both blindness and ignorance exist in sufficient quantity that simple fact flew over the head of almost all posters so that the responses were arguing the _merits_ of SSM and not it’s [potential] _rationality_. > > > > It’s that irony that interested me. I’m not going to advance an argument for SSM (especially since I have no position on it) _and specifically it’s rationality_ when the blindness of faith and simple ignorance make it impossible for many/most here. > > > > (\*in some parts we call that _faith_.) > > I did the find/replace thing again. I replaced SSM with interracial marriage. Big wall of text, so in the spoiler for page flow. > > > [@](#): > > > > There is a distinct difference between a _good_ reason, and an _irrational_ reason. > > > > Only _blindness_---------the result of the _certainty_ of one’s beliefs\* ------ or _ignorance_ can have someone as confused as you appear to be. > > > > Listen, I disagree with much of what **Liberal** and **Polycarp** have to say. Still, I can’t remember anything they’ve said that I would characterize as _irrational_, or _illogical._ (two words that are rarely used correctly here) They are thoughtful, intelligent, _logical_ and _rational_ in their views/posts. > > > > And, in my view, _wrong_ a fair amount of the time. That’s not to say that there isn’t illogical or irrational arguments to be made from any position. IMV, **Der Tris** is most often irrational in his posts. So…any given person can make a rational or irrational argument from many points of discussion. > > > > So in [theoretical] situations where **Liberal, Polycarp and Der Tris** may hold the same [end] view, I can make a distinction between what I perceive to be a rational and irrational argument for that view, _even if in the end I perceive them both to wrong._ > > > > IIRC, I seem to remember that **Bricker** made the mistake in those threads of not not advocating for Prop 8----after all he is pro-interracial marriage----but for not demonizing the anti-interracial marriage crowd. In a strange twist he ended up intellectually homeless. On the one hand he didn’t belong in the Prop 8 crowd. On the other, by asserting that he could see a _rational_, \*logical \* argument for anti-interracial marriage--------even though not _compelling_ enough for him to support--------he ended up attacked anyway. _He was forced to argue for the rationality for a policy he didn’t even support!_ > > > > It’s worth repeating: He wasn’t arguing for Prop 8, but rather it’s [potential, in some contexts] _rationality._ That’s a fool’s game, IMV. Because in my observation that both blindness and ignorance exist in sufficient quantity that simple fact flew over the head of almost all posters so that the responses were arguing the _merits_ of interracial marriage and not it’s [potential] _rationality_. > > > > It’s that irony that interested me. I’m not going to advance an argument for interracial marriage (especially since I have no position on it) _and specifically it’s rationality_ when the blindness of faith and simple ignorance make it impossible for many/most here. > > > > (\*in some parts we call that _faith_.) > > My assessment is again, same sentiment. > > Please tell me, why is gay marriage different than interracial marriage? Can you give me one argument against gay marriage that is different than the arguments against interracial marriage? Because it looks to me like the same shit, new label. There is a very slight difference, one rapidly being eroded. In **Federal** jurisprudence, which is what is relevant to constitutionality discussions, discrimination on the basis of race (a) was made illegal by statute, and (b) had already amassed a significant body of case law at the time of _Loving_. There is no similar Federal statute as regards discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation, and the body of case law is only now slowly being built up. It is not a difference that I personally feel makes any difference to 14th Amendment constitutionality analysis. But it is a distinction at law that _can_ be argued _rationally_. One issue I feel is clouding these discussions is the tendency of Liberals to, in effect, imagine the Courts’ benches being populated by Vulcans. Saying a law has a rational basis means that the court found some reason legitimate at law why the legislature might have written the law as they did. It does not mean they made the right, the best, the most logical choice. It means that, with there being a presumption of constitutionality, the legislature is presumed to have had some rational grounds for having passed the law, and it is the court’s duty, in considering a challenge to its constitutionality, to find those grounds. If they cannot, then it fails the rational basis test. A county agricultural zoning law that requires dairy farmers to maintain a significantly larger acreage than soybean farmers will have a rational basis at law (cows need more room than soybean plants) – unless it is shown that the only three dairy farmers in the county are black, and it was done as a means ofcondemning their farms legally. ---
**Author:** ![Bryan\_Ekers](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bryan_ekers/32/183_2.png) [@Bryan\_Ekers](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bryan_Ekers)\ **Post date:** [August 21, 2010, 3:22am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/fuck-you-prop-8-supporters-also-fuck-you-dishonest-news-media/549433/302 "2010-08-21T03:22:31Z")
> [@Xenocrates](#): > > I’ll go last to first, Bryan. > > > [@](#): > > > > A stance that oppresses another group without reason… I don’t offhand know of a better descriptor than “bigotry”. Much as I dislike dictionary cites, [dictionary.com](http://dictionary.com) supports me when it defines “bigotry” as “stubborn and complete intolerance of any creed, belief, or opinion that differs from one’s own.” I daresay the “stubborn” part is well-supported, though “any” might be overstating it, since I can only address your statements on this one issue. I don’t see the emptiness you’re claiming, nor have I ever said in response to anyone on this issue: “You only say that because you’re a bigot, period.” I believe I’ve presented a sufficient amount of detailed and thoughtful analysis. You are free to disagree, of course, including choosing the believe that my use of “bigot” invalidates anything I might say on the subject. > > I don’t know why you think I am stubborn. Well, I daresay it is stubborn to maintain an anti-SSM stance without reason, and it is stubborn to maintain that those who maintain an anti-SSM without reason are being reasonable. I don’t want to be obscure, so in more straightforward terms: [ul][li]People who believe Principal A are _irrational_ if there is no reason to believe Principal A. They are _stubborn_ if they persist in believing Principal A even after being given evidence that Principal A is wrong and are unable to present any evidence the Principal A is right.[/li][li]People who sympathize with the believers of Principal A (even if they don’t personally believe Principal A), and say the believers are being rational are wrong if Principal A has no rationale, and stubborn if they persist in claiming believers are rational even in the face of evidence that they are not and in lieu of evidence that they are.[/ul][/li] You say you’re not opposed to SSM, fine, I believe you. But you’re claiming that people who are opposed have reasons, and despite repeated requests for those reasons (whether or not you believe them yourself), I’ve never seen a good reason to oppose SSM, and I think I’ve been more than open to the idea that such reasons might exist. I’ve even suggested theories that could easily become reasons if supporting evidence was found. > [@](#): > > [ We are having an argument. Typically in arguments people disagree. It’s not as though I’ve said “yes all your arguments make sense and mine are clearly fallacious but I still adhere to my original position just because.” I wasn’t saying that your use of bigot invalidates anything at all. Just that you don’t have reason to be saying anything substantial by it so I can only interpret it as “boooo.” I don’t think that opposing gay marriage makes one a bigot. However, I have said a number of times that I’m in favor of gay marriage so it seems very, very easy to meet your criteria for bigotry. I’m casually confident my arguments are light-years beyond “boooo”, but fine. Let’s assume that non-bigot reasons to oppose gay marriage exist. What might those reasons be? It’s simply not enough to say that reasons exist: what are they? > [@](#): > > I can be classified as a libertarian though my views are more nuanced and less dogmatic than most libertarians I’ve talked to, so I have pretty strong views about individual liberty and state power. However, I don’t see how this is an individual liberty issue or an issue of the government “allowing” anything. In all cases I can think of, when we are talking about an individual liberty issue we are talking about a situation in which some people are doing some action and the government is stopping them by force and then punishing them with a loss of life, liberty, or property. But that is not at all like the issue of SSM. In the issue of SSM we are talking about the government granting a certain legal status. People can do whatever they want with regard to non-legal marriage (assuming all involved are consenting adults). You can have any kind of religious ceremony you like, you can call yourselves married, you can live together, you can sleep together etc. Heterosexual couples can do this, homosexual couples can do this, triplets of people can do this, hell even cousins can do this afaik. (In fact my “perfect world” scenario for marriage would have the state step out of it completely since I see no good reason for the state to even have a legal status associated with marriage but that is neither here nor there.) So if the government were arresting people for living with and having monogamous sex with a partner of the same sex, THAT would be an individual liberty issue and one that I feel very strongly about. Proponents of SSM are not asking that some people be LEFT ALONE to do whatever it is they are doing, they are asking for something to be GIVEN to some people, namely a legal status. Well, the legal status carries certain privileges that are very clearly not covered by the casual arrangements you describe, and are available to one segment of the population while denied to another, and the reasons for the denial are not rational ones. [ul][li]I want to vote ( - you can’t, because you’re a woman)[/li][li]I want to sit at the front of the bus ( - you can’t, because you’re black)[/li][li]I want to marry the person I love ( - you can’t, because he’s black and you’re white)[/li][li]I want to marry the person I love ( - you can’t, because he’s a man and so are you)[/ul][/li] Which these denials, if any, were rational? Like it or not, the legal status of marriage carries some fairly significant weight to it, and must receive government recognition. The single biggest privilege I can think of that requires government support is the right to prevent a spouse from revealing confidential marital information in court. In your perfect world, what happens to this? If it’s a “neither here nor there” issue, you needn’t answer. > [@](#): > > > [@](#): > > > > Well, what is a “social practice” ? You’re using the term pretty freely without defining it. How many mutually monogamous long-term homosexual couples must exist before they get recognition as engaging in a “social practice” ? It very much looks like they want to participate in a “social practice” that many many other Americans do, but are being denied because of their genders, and that strikes me as an odd and unnecessary barrier and not something that needs to be written into law, when gender distinctions are generally not written into law. > > You’re right, that was bad word choice. I suppose the phrase that is closer to what I mean is “social institution.” It seems to me that the legal status of marriage is only there by virtue of it’s correspondence with a particular social institution that people tend to think is really important. I make the historical claim that marriage as an institution has traditionally been a practice applicable only to groups made of one man and one woman. Of course, I could be wrong about this. I could have been massively deceived while in fact throughout history, marriage in the western world has been a practice applicable to two adults regardless of sex. I find that unlikely, but it is possible. Of course, social practices are changing and as they do, they slowly change the properties of the very old institution of marriage. As practices change, it seems appropriate that the law should change as well since the only justification I can see for marriage law in the first place is the historical social institution. Does it really matter if the demand for SSM goes back centuries or only to last Thursday? How much history is needed? Suppose the first court case on this issue (obviously not decided in favour of SSM, but it shows an American court was willing to hear the issue, and there was a gay couple willing to pursue it) dated back, say… 40 years? Would that indicate a sufficient historical basis for the issue? If not, what would satisfy the “historical” standard? > [@](#): > > So I see some people as saying “Stick to tradition!” while others say “Change the institution!” I happen to side with the latter group, but the first group doesn’t seem to have an unreasonable position. Well, then, it shouldn’t be hard to explain their reasons, or so I would expect. > [@](#): > > Given that the law should correspond in some way to social practice and that married couples are traditionally and typically of opposite sexes, it seems pretty reasonable to have the position that the legal status of marriage should apply only to couples of opposite sexes. But by that argument, laws _never_ change. If tradition alone is reason enough, then laws are and ever will be static. The real power will be not with citizens demanding changes from their courts and elected officials, but with whoever gets to define what is and is not traditional. Actually, that sounds a lot like Iran and its formal theocracy. > [@](#): > > In your reply I would very much appreciate it if you would answer this question: do you grant me that the above statement is true? By “given” i mean accept for the sake of argument. So IF I could convince you of everything before the comma would you then accept that it seems pretty reasonable (NOT correct, merely reasonable) to have the position that I go on to specify? No, I don’t grant that the above statement is true. The law can correspond with social practice (or tradition or historical precedent or whatever), but I see no reason why it must be _bound_ by it, nor why making this change represents an objective threat to anyone or anything. My own country has had gay marriage for over five years, now. I’m not aware of any negative effects, nor of any huge philosophical gulf between my country and the U.S. that suggests it would be a problem there, either. Now, IF you could convince me otherwise, I’m sure I’d feel differently. And if I had wheels, I’d be a wagon. I believe you when you say you want to change the law in favour of SSM. I just don’t understand your (I daresay stubborn) sympathy for those who feel otherwise when they have no reason (that I know of) beyond “tradition.” ---
**Author:** ![raindog](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/2bfe46/32.png) [@raindog](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/raindog)\ **Post date:** [August 21, 2010, 3:38am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/fuck-you-prop-8-supporters-also-fuck-you-dishonest-news-media/549433/303 "2010-08-21T03:38:41Z")
> [@The\_Tao\_s\_Revenge](#): > > _…snip…_ > > Please tell me, why is gay marriage different than interracial marriage? Can you give me one argument against gay marriage that is different than the arguments against interracial marriage? Because it looks to me like the same shit, new label. You see, it certainly appears that you are either _blind_ to the rationality and logic to the answer to that question, (a function of the greatest of faiths) or ignorant of the difference between what is _compelling_ and what is _rational._ (and I mean no disrespect; and further it matters not whether that ignorance is “blissful” or willful, should it exist) The difference between what is _compelling_ and what is _rational_ is not semantics. Once you remove rationality from the counter-argument it is standard protocol to ascribe much less altruistic motives. We quickly go to “homophobia”, “hatred” and other sundry nonsense. The fact that there are many who actually are homophobic, and hate filled simply provides us with the widest paint brush from which to paint all who oppose SSM. Theres _utility_ in ignorance and hatred. If I was a dyed-in-the-wool atheist I would cringe at many of Der Tris’s posts, because _while I might agree with his conclusions_ my fear would be that many of his posts are sufficiently irrational, and illogical that they might globally undermine my positions. Similarly, I am a theist and nothing Polycarp has ever said has made me cringe at being a Christian, although some others have; for the same reasons----that they seem _irrational._ So I will reiterate ----ad nauseum------that you can’t see the real issue—either out of blindness or ignorance. (or some other reason) And so I will not be baited into the debate with questions about SSM vis a vis interracial marriage because anyone older than 30 knows that there are rational, logical, non-hate filled, non-homophobic reasons to reject the correlation between gay rights and the civil rights era/struggle. Those same people would be aware that many giants of the civil rights struggle are **highly offended** at the argument. Are their arguments _compelling?_ Thats a worthy discussion and one I have [little, and ironic] stake in. For the sake of discussion _ **lets say that they are not compelling.** _ The standard SDMB meme follows than that the only possible motivation must be both irrational and illogical. That’s either an uniformed or ignorant position. ---
**Author:** ![Bryan\_Ekers](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bryan_ekers/32/183_2.png) [@Bryan\_Ekers](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bryan_Ekers)\ **Post date:** [August 21, 2010, 3:50am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/fuck-you-prop-8-supporters-also-fuck-you-dishonest-news-media/549433/304 "2010-08-21T03:50:20Z")
Yeah, that’s great and all, but what are the reasons for opposing SSM? ---
**Author:** ![raindog](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/2bfe46/32.png) [@raindog](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/raindog)\ **Post date:** [August 21, 2010, 3:51am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/fuck-you-prop-8-supporters-also-fuck-you-dishonest-news-media/549433/305 "2010-08-21T03:51:57Z")
> [@Bryan\_Ekers](#): > > Yeah, that’s great and all, but what are the reasons for opposing SSM? :smack: ---
**Author:** ![Bryan\_Ekers](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bryan_ekers/32/183_2.png) [@Bryan\_Ekers](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bryan_Ekers)\ **Post date:** [August 21, 2010, 4:03am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/fuck-you-prop-8-supporters-also-fuck-you-dishonest-news-media/549433/306 "2010-08-21T04:03:15Z")
I’d just like you to describe whatever it is that apparently “anyone older than 30 knows”. These are apparently “rational, logical, non-hate filled, non-homophobic reasons”, so… what are they? ---
**Author:** ![raindog](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/2bfe46/32.png) [@raindog](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/raindog)\ **Post date:** [August 21, 2010, 4:04am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/fuck-you-prop-8-supporters-also-fuck-you-dishonest-news-media/549433/307 "2010-08-21T04:04:33Z")
> [@Bryan\_Ekers](#): > > I’d just like you to describe whatever it is that apparently “anyone older than 30 knows”. These are apparently “rational, logical, non-hate filled, non-homophobic reasons”, so… what are they? :smack::smack: ---
**Author:** ![Bryan\_Ekers](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bryan_ekers/32/183_2.png) [@Bryan\_Ekers](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bryan_Ekers)\ **Post date:** [August 21, 2010, 4:06am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/fuck-you-prop-8-supporters-also-fuck-you-dishonest-news-media/549433/308 "2010-08-21T04:06:27Z")
These reasons exist, right? ---
**Author:** ![mhendo](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/mhendo/32/3159_2.png) [@mhendo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/mhendo)\ **Post date:** [August 21, 2010, 4:11am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/fuck-you-prop-8-supporters-also-fuck-you-dishonest-news-media/549433/309 "2010-08-21T04:11:50Z")
> [@raindog](#): > > So I will reiterate ----ad nauseum------that you can’t see the real issue—either out of blindness or ignorance. (or some other reason) And so I will not be baited into the debate with questions about SSM vis a vis interracial marriage because anyone older than 30 knows that there are rational, logical, non-hate filled, non-homophobic reasons to reject the correlation between gay rights and the civil rights era/struggle. Those same people would be aware that many giants of the civil rights struggle are **highly offended** at the argument. As someone who works as a college teacher of US history, who has taught courses on the civil rights era, and who is over 30, i can really think of no rational reason to reject such a correlation. There are, as you say, people who were involved in the civil rights struggle who are offended at the comparison, but much as i respect the work those people have done in the struggle for civil rights, i’m actually somewhat disappointed at their stubbornness and their myopia on the gay rights issue. While the two struggles might not be perfectly congruent, and while there might be important degrees of difference in particular areas, many of the basic principles hold true, and to reject any correlation is, in my view, irrational. To be quite honest, i have more respect for someone who comes straight out and says, “For religious (or whatever) reasons, i believe that homosexuality is immoral, and i therefore think that gays shouldn’t be allowed to marry,” than i do for some of the tortuous arguments whereby people attempt to pretend that this is not a civil rights issue. ---
**Author:** ![Bryan\_Ekers](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bryan_ekers/32/183_2.png) [@Bryan\_Ekers](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bryan_Ekers)\ **Post date:** [August 21, 2010, 4:18am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/fuck-you-prop-8-supporters-also-fuck-you-dishonest-news-media/549433/310 "2010-08-21T04:18:48Z")
> [@mhendo](#): > > To be quite honest, i have more respect for someone who comes straight out and says, “For religious (or whatever) reasons, i believe that homosexuality is immoral, and i therefore think that gays shouldn’t be allowed to marry,” than i do for some of the tortuous arguments whereby people attempt to pretend that this is not a civil rights issue. Indeed. And related, I can imagine “I favour SSM myself, but I have friends and relatives who believe homosexuality is immoral and therefore think gays shouldn’t be allowed to marry, and even though I disagree with them, I know they’re not bad people and I love and respect them…” etc. ---
**Author:** ![Revtim](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/revtim/32/1042_2.png) [@Revtim](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Revtim)\ **Post date:** [August 21, 2010, 4:39am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/fuck-you-prop-8-supporters-also-fuck-you-dishonest-news-media/549433/311 "2010-08-21T04:39:48Z")
> [@Bryan\_Ekers](#): > > These reasons exist, right? I think the answer to that is clear. ---
**Author:** ![BrightNShiny](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/7bcc69/32.png) [@BrightNShiny](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BrightNShiny)\ **Post date:** [August 21, 2010, 4:55am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/fuck-you-prop-8-supporters-also-fuck-you-dishonest-news-media/549433/312 "2010-08-21T04:55:30Z")
> [@Bryan\_Ekers](#): > > These reasons exist, right? 1. Gay people get gay-married. 2. ??? 3. Dogs and cats living together… Mass hysteria! ---
**Author:** ![Meyer6](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/cc9497/32.png) [@Meyer6](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Meyer6)\ **Post date:** [August 21, 2010, 5:52am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/fuck-you-prop-8-supporters-also-fuck-you-dishonest-news-media/549433/313 "2010-08-21T05:52:17Z")
> [@The\_Tao\_s\_Revenge](#): > > > [@Bricker](#): > > > > Who said anything about equal? > > > > This is separate and unequal. > > > > And who said anything about ‘wrong?’ You said you didn’t understand how it could be constitutional. > > > > Are you not understanding me? > > > > You’re not one of those people that thinks ‘unconstitutional’ and ‘wrong’ mean the same thing, are you? > > Maybe he’s saying the legal logic that lead to Jim-Crow was kind of a jackassed bigoted thing? But as you note, it’s not even “separate but equal”. This is nothing but an attempt to use the law to harass a class of citizens, through no crime of their own, and deny them the equal protections of marriage. Yes, that was my point - thank you. For the record I do understand what you’re getting at Bricker, but I still think that denying rights solely on the basis of sexuality violates the spirit of the constitution. I’m no lawyer though, so I won’t argue the details. And I know unconstitutional and wrong don’t mean the same thing - I just happen to think that the anti-SSM arguments are both wrong \*and \*unconstitutional. ---
**Author:** ![magellan01](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/45deac/32.png) [@magellan01](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/magellan01)\ **Post date:** [August 21, 2010, 6:08am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/fuck-you-prop-8-supporters-also-fuck-you-dishonest-news-media/549433/314 "2010-08-21T06:08:47Z")
> [@Bryan\_Ekers](#): > > You say you’re not opposed to SSM, fine, I believe you. But you’re claiming that people who are opposed have reasons, and despite repeated requests for those reasons (whether or not you believe them yourself), I’ve never seen a good reason to oppose SSM, and I think I’ve been more than open to the idea that such reasons might exist. I’ve even suggested theories that could easily become reasons if supporting evidence was found. Here’s your problem: you _say_ you want reasons. But when you _get_ reasons you put them through _your_ filter to evaluate whether they are “good” ones. I’ve given you reasons before. Others have as well, mswas for one. You don’t think there good reasons, and that is completely fine. But that is not to say that reasons have not been supplied to you. Now I’m sure you will continue with this untruth and move the goalposts, but I thought I’d just lay out the facts for any that might care. You may go back to your fun now. ---
**Author:** ![Bryan\_Ekers](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bryan_ekers/32/183_2.png) [@Bryan\_Ekers](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bryan_Ekers)\ **Post date:** [August 21, 2010, 6:43am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/fuck-you-prop-8-supporters-also-fuck-you-dishonest-news-media/549433/315 "2010-08-21T06:43:15Z")
> [@magellan01](#): > > > [@Bryan\_Ekers](#): > > > > You say you’re not opposed to SSM, fine, I believe you. But you’re claiming that people who are opposed have reasons, and despite repeated requests for those reasons (whether or not you believe them yourself), I’ve never seen a good reason to oppose SSM, and I think I’ve been more than open to the idea that such reasons might exist. I’ve even suggested theories that could easily become reasons if supporting evidence was found. > > Here’s your problem: you _say_ you want reasons. But when you _get_ reasons you put them through _your_ filter to evaluate whether they are “good” ones. I’ve given you reasons before. Others have as well, mswas for one. You don’t think there good reasons, and that is completely fine. But that is not to say that reasons have not been supplied to you. Were they? I’m prepared to admit I may have forgotten or overlooked or unfairly dismissed a reason that was given to me. Off the top of my head, I recall the following: [ul][li]Tradition:Marriage has always been between a man and woman and should remain so. I dismiss this one because “tradition” by itself is not compelling, and “tradition” by itself can be used to support bad principles (heh, I repeatedly write “Principal” a few posts back, for which I feel ashamed) like keeping women and blacks in their place.[/li][li]Procreation:Homosexuals can’t procreate and children are a major element of marriage. Dismissed because children are not a _necessary_ element of marriage, that a heterosexual marriage does not need children or the possibility of children to be valid. Further, homosexual couples can raise children if they use various fertility methods (surrogacy, artificial insemination) or adopt.[/li][li]Majority Rule:This is a simplification of what I seem to recall was Bricker’s big argument, namely that someone could be opposed to SSM because the majority is, and not from any personal homophobia or bigotry. I dismiss this because the argument calls for neutrality rather than conformity, i.e. this person shouldn’t vote for Prop 8 or whatever, but abstain and let the vote go where it may. Even then… big deal. Civil rights issues aren’t decided by majority rule, and never have, and never should be.[/li][li]Unforeseen future negatives:Gay marriage will lead to some bad social effects down the road. I think this was one of _your_ arguments, wasn’t it? I dismiss it because I can never find out what these effects were, or how they would come about, and now, with Canada having had gay marriage for over five years and no bad effects brewing I’m aware of…[/ul][/li] There may be others. I invite you to point out my logical flaws in any of the above, or point out something I missed. I can, of course, only apply my own filter (I assume everyone does) but I think it’s a good filter, as filters go. Biased in favour of individual freedom and equal treatment and capitalism and such. And I’m calm about it, too. This being a Pit thread, I’m free to heap profane scorn on someone who is suggesting I’m a liar, but I’m refraining because I take more pleasure in discussing the issue rationally, to the extent that I can, which I think is pretty far. ---
**Author:** ![Bryan\_Ekers](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bryan_ekers/32/183_2.png) [@Bryan\_Ekers](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bryan_Ekers)\ **Post date:** [August 21, 2010, 7:10am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/fuck-you-prop-8-supporters-also-fuck-you-dishonest-news-media/549433/316 "2010-08-21T07:10:27Z")
By the way, since the concept of “cringe” was earlier introduced (i.e. even his fellow atheists cringe when Der Trihs makes an argument because he’s such a bad irrational bigoted person or whatever), I cheerfully invite any and all fellow SSM supporters to let me know if anything I say gets them cringing or hurts the cause or whatever. ---
**Author:** ![Bryan\_Ekers](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bryan_ekers/32/183_2.png) [@Bryan\_Ekers](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bryan_Ekers)\ **Post date:** [August 21, 2010, 8:29am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/fuck-you-prop-8-supporters-also-fuck-you-dishonest-news-media/549433/317 "2010-08-21T08:29:22Z")
It occurs to me than when I say “[c]ivil rights issues aren’t decided by majority rule, and never have” that I’ve overlooked ballot initiatives like California’s Prop 8 and such. Lest my entire argument be dismissed because of this minor error, I’ll clarify that civil rights issues _shouldn’t_ be decided by majority rule, and at the Federal level they are not, though it can vary by state to some degree. ---
**Author:** ![VinylTurnip](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/v/b2d939/32.png) [@VinylTurnip](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/VinylTurnip)\ **Post date:** [August 21, 2010, 1:47pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/fuck-you-prop-8-supporters-also-fuck-you-dishonest-news-media/549433/318 "2010-08-21T13:47:42Z")
> [@raindog](#): > > > [@VinylTurnip](#): > > > > Definition of “marriage” not sticky enough for you, eh? > > Huh? 😕 It was a little double (or triple) entendre wordplay on the terms “definition” and “sticky.” One of my growing collection of lead balloons. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [August 21, 2010, 1:53pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/fuck-you-prop-8-supporters-also-fuck-you-dishonest-news-media/549433/319 "2010-08-21T13:53:30Z")
> [@Bryan\_Ekers](#): > > Civil rights issues aren’t decided by majority rule, and never have, and never should be. This is not true. Every single law under which we live, to include civil rights, was decided by majority rule. ---
**Author:** ![cwthree](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/9de0a6/32.png) [@cwthree](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/cwthree)\ **Post date:** [August 21, 2010, 2:10pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/fuck-you-prop-8-supporters-also-fuck-you-dishonest-news-media/549433/320 "2010-08-21T14:10:38Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > > [@Bryan\_Ekers](#): > > > > Civil rights issues aren’t decided by majority rule, and never have, and never should be. > > This is not true. Every single law under which we live, to include civil rights, was decided by majority rule. Only if by “majority” you mean the majority of a tiny subset of the voting population (i.e. Congress or the Supreme Court). [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/fuck-you-prop-8-supporters-also-fuck-you-dishonest-news-media/549433.md?page=15) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/fuck-you-prop-8-supporters-also-fuck-you-dishonest-news-media/549433.md?page=17)