# How to decide which instances of opposition to gay marriage are hateful and bigoted. **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [August 6, 2012, 8:14pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-to-decide-which-instances-of-opposition-to-gay-marriage-are-hateful-and-bigoted/630653 "2012-08-06T20:14:55Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 19
**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:** [September 1, 2012, 2:43pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-to-decide-which-instances-of-opposition-to-gay-marriage-are-hateful-and-bigoted/630653/361 "2012-09-01T14:43:32Z")
> [@Learjeff](#): > > This is a bigoted statement. What you’re saying here is “If your religion disagrees with anything anyone else thinks is OK, you’re a bigot.” > > Please examine your views carefully and realize that differences in opinion, difference in religious views, and different values are not bigotry. If we use the word that way, it loses a lot of its usefulness as a word. > > But what’s worse, by using the word, we anathematise those who disagree with us. That’s not a healthy or useful place from where to start any kind of discussion that might improve things. Well, actually, labeling them as bigots (with justification or not) can indeed be useful when others are deciding to embrace that cause or not, or when a politician has to decide which side of the issue to support. You have little chance of changing the mind of the “bigot”, but you can reduce the amount of support he gets. In this particular case, the justification level happens to be rather high. We don’t even have to delve into particular religious beliefs. They want to deny a group of citizens equal treatment under the law for no reason other than a personal sense of revulsion at that group? Bigotry. They can try to dress it up by talking at length about the specific meanings of particular words, as though the dictionary had some spiritual universal aspect to it, but that’s too easily shown as vapid and irrational; merely a flimsy justification. ---
**Author:** ![Learjeff](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/94ad74/32.png) [@Learjeff](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Learjeff)\ **Post date:** [September 1, 2012, 2:44pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-to-decide-which-instances-of-opposition-to-gay-marriage-are-hateful-and-bigoted/630653/362 "2012-09-01T14:44:34Z")
Let me clarify my statement above, “It’s your religion, please take responsibility for it.” You already do this. When you got married, you probably didn’t go to a court and get a civil ceremony. You probably didn’t go to a rabbi, or an imam. No, you consulted with a priest or minister. Good for you. Likewise, if a gay couple wants to be married in a church, it’s up to them to find a church whose theology allows it. But the governent has no business making these theological distinctions. ---
**Author:** ![Learjeff](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/94ad74/32.png) [@Learjeff](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Learjeff)\ **Post date:** [September 1, 2012, 2:48pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-to-decide-which-instances-of-opposition-to-gay-marriage-are-hateful-and-bigoted/630653/363 "2012-09-01T14:48:31Z")
> [@FinnAgain](#): > > That’s absurd. Just because bigotry is based in religious views does not suddenly make it non-bigoted. That Klan based(s) their bigotry on religion, too. The idea that it’s just “differences in opinion, difference in religious views, and different values” is a dodge of the first order, and it’s transparently so. I disagree. IMHO, the word “bigot” should be reserved for those who are unwilling to carefully consider the merits of the other side and engage in honest communication, who are not seriously interested in doing what’s right. It’s true that religion is often used as a cover for bigotry. I don’t argue with that. But that doesn’t mean that religiously-based opinions are necessarily bigotry. Bigotry includes the inflexible “i’m right you’re wrong” attitude. I’m arguing for empathy. I challenge those on both sides. ---
**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:** [September 1, 2012, 2:48pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-to-decide-which-instances-of-opposition-to-gay-marriage-are-hateful-and-bigoted/630653/364 "2012-09-01T14:48:56Z")
> [@Learjeff](#): > > Likewise, if a gay couple wants to be married in a church, it’s up to them to find a church whose theology allows it. Well, they can just walk into a church and whisper to each other “I marry you”, and declare that to be a church wedding. Who’s to say otherwise? Of course, that won’t much impress an insurance company until they can get their hands on a civil marriage license. ---
**Author:** ![Learjeff](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/94ad74/32.png) [@Learjeff](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Learjeff)\ **Post date:** [September 1, 2012, 2:52pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-to-decide-which-instances-of-opposition-to-gay-marriage-are-hateful-and-bigoted/630653/365 "2012-09-01T14:52:56Z")
> [@FinnAgain](#): > > This isn’t an instance of “disagreeing with anything anyone else thinks is OK”, this is an issue of denying civil rights to a group. Good point. So, your definition of bigot includes anyone who does this, for any reason or with any attitude? I suppose that’s a reasonable definition. I think most people put a bit more emotional emphasis on it. But you’ve made a good point here. ---
**Author:** ![Learjeff](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/94ad74/32.png) [@Learjeff](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Learjeff)\ **Post date:** [September 1, 2012, 2:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-to-decide-which-instances-of-opposition-to-gay-marriage-are-hateful-and-bigoted/630653/366 "2012-09-01T14:55:37Z")
> [@Bryan\_Ekers](#): > > Well, they can just walk into a church and whisper to each other “I marry you”, and declare that to be a church wedding. Who’s to say otherwise? > > Of course, that won’t much impress an insurance company until they can get their hands on a civil marriage license. Right. That’s a legal issue, and the laws shouldn’t be based on religion. Realistically, the laws are based more on tradition than religion, and it’s tradition that we’re talking about changing. We shouldn’t be surprised that there’s resistance. I hope I live long enough to see it fade to insignificance. ---
**Author:** ![Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/left_hand_of_dorkness/32/7156_2.png) [@Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Left_Hand_of_Dorkness)\ **Post date:** [September 1, 2012, 2:56pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-to-decide-which-instances-of-opposition-to-gay-marriage-are-hateful-and-bigoted/630653/367 "2012-09-01T14:56:06Z")
> [@Learjeff](#): > > I disagree. IMHO, the word “bigot” should be reserved for those who are unwilling to carefully consider the merits of the other side and engage in honest communication, who are not seriously interested in doing what’s right. “Bigotry” can refer to beliefs that treat a class of people with intolerance ([cite](http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/bigot)). When someone refuses to tolerate same-sex couples, to the degree that they’re unwilling to allow the obvious word “marriage” to apply to a couple who love each other romantically and sexually and who decide to form a legal and social family unit together, then that person fits the definition of “bigot” to a T. They can be a nice person in other ways, and they can reconsider their views, but this particular glove fits. As for religious views: we can either define good and evil independently of God, or we can say that what God says is by definition good. If we do the former, then it makes total sense to call God’s actions evil, if they match the definition of evil. If the latter, then “good” and “evil” become almost meaningless words, and we need another set of words to describe ethical and unethical concepts. If your God, to use an extreme example, calls on you to murder your child, can’t I call your God a jerk? Similarly, if your God declares that one way of fitting genitals together for fun is okay, but another way of fitting genitals together for fun isn’t, I’m gonna think your God is a bigot. What’s good and what’s evil isn’t defined by what God says; rather, we need to look at the claims of any purported God and judge those claims according to what we believe good and evil to be. ---
**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:** [September 1, 2012, 2:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-to-decide-which-instances-of-opposition-to-gay-marriage-are-hateful-and-bigoted/630653/368 "2012-09-01T14:58:30Z")
> [@Learjeff](#): > > Right. That’s a legal issue, and the laws shouldn’t be based on religion. > > Realistically, the laws are based more on tradition than religion, and it’s tradition that we’re talking about changing. We shouldn’t be surprised that there’s resistance. I hope I live long enough to see it fade to insignificance. Well, you could move to Canada. The issue’s significance level is such that I can’t remember the last time any politician mentioned it. ---
**Author:** ![Der\_Trihs](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/der_trihs/32/233_2.png) [@Der\_Trihs](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Der_Trihs)\ **Post date:** [September 1, 2012, 4:32pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-to-decide-which-instances-of-opposition-to-gay-marriage-are-hateful-and-bigoted/630653/369 "2012-09-01T16:32:06Z")
> [@Learjeff](#): > > I see your point, but still disagree. If they happen to be correct, and God does deplore homosexuality as a sin, does that make God a bigot? In your estimation, perhaps, but by some definitions of “bigot” above, it might make you the bigot (unwilling to change your attitude). (Not that I think this is in the least bit likely, since I don’t believe in God.) Calling someone a “bigot” because they don’t hate or try to harm a group of people who aren’t hurting anyone is an inversion of the term. > [@Learjeff](#): > > But in my mind there’s a huge difference between what I’d call “bigotry” where people feel hatred or superiority for a group, versus empathetic disagreement with certain behaviors. Note that I don’t even think there’s a good Biblical argument for their position, but I draw a distinction and feel the word “bigot” is abused when applied to people who are doing their gosh-darndest to do the right thing. I doubt that someone who is being oppressed, harassed or assaulted cares a great deal if their enemy is “doing their gosh-darndest to do the right thing”. > [@Learjeff](#): > > This is a bigoted statement. What you’re saying here is “If your religion disagrees with anything anyone else thinks is OK, you’re a bigot.” > > Please examine your views carefully and realize that differences in opinion, difference in religious views, and different values are not bigotry. If we use the word that way, it loses a lot of its usefulness as a word. Oh, please; this is about people working to harm and oppress a group of people who aren’t harming anyone out of hatred and the belief they are “sinful”; if that isn’t bigotry, what is? > [@Learjeff](#): > > But what’s worse, by using the word, we anathematise those who disagree with us. That’s not a healthy or useful place from where to start any kind of discussion that might improve things. Nonsense. It’s a very effective way of shaming people into changing their public behavior, if not their minds. That’s why they don’t want anyone to apply the term to them. And people this evil should be “anathematized”. ---
**Author:** ![Learjeff](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/94ad74/32.png) [@Learjeff](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Learjeff)\ **Post date:** [September 1, 2012, 7:12pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-to-decide-which-instances-of-opposition-to-gay-marriage-are-hateful-and-bigoted/630653/370 "2012-09-01T19:12:50Z")
> [@Bryan\_Ekers](#): > > Well, you could move to Canada. The issue’s significance level is such that I can’t remember the last time any politician mentioned it. Even were I a Canadian, I’d like to live long enough to see this happen in the US, and in as many countries as possible. I’m happily married and have no need to move to Canada, as nice as it may be. My wife would leave me; she couldn’t take Michigan winters. So, except for Victoria maybe, Canada is out. ---
**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:** [September 1, 2012, 7:43pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-to-decide-which-instances-of-opposition-to-gay-marriage-are-hateful-and-bigoted/630653/371 "2012-09-01T19:43:13Z")
Well, with any luck we’ll annex the Turks and Caicos Islands sooner or later. ---
**Author:** ![D-bear](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/aeb1de/32.png) [@D-bear](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/D-bear)\ **Post date:** [September 1, 2012, 8:12pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-to-decide-which-instances-of-opposition-to-gay-marriage-are-hateful-and-bigoted/630653/372 "2012-09-01T20:12:16Z")
> [@magellan01](#): > > At the same time, I firmly believe that it benefits our society to not muddle the definition of “marriage”. That it serves a valuable function, particularly for laying the world out for children. I think it behooves us to communicate to future generations that there is a, if you will, a default course for their lives. Are you saying that there is a NEED to reinforce that one way is correct and one way is incorrect? We need to push an idea that a natural attraction to a person of the same gender is a sign of a flawed human being? Sounds like an excuse to continue indoctrinating intolerance, shame and setting up an “us vs. them” mentality that fosters bullying. Just my opinion though. ---
**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:** [September 1, 2012, 8:30pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-to-decide-which-instances-of-opposition-to-gay-marriage-are-hateful-and-bigoted/630653/373 "2012-09-01T20:30:02Z")
Well, it raises a question - do magellan and those with similar opinion believe that social acceptance of homosexuality (normalization, as it were) causes more people to become gay? I was personally operating on the assumption that some small percentage of the population was going to be gay through random chance, and the distinction to be made was: -Social acceptance, so they grow up, be gay, nobody cares, and they’re happy or unhappy like anyone else is. -Social nonacceptance, so they grow up, can’t openly be gay, pretend (against their personal drives) to be straight, live lives with a greater chance of being unhappy. So if the proportion was, say, 10%: in the former case, 10% of the population is openly gay, while in the latter case 5% is openly gay (braving the intolerance or finding societal niches where intolerance is lowest) while 5% is in public (and possibly private) denial, with all the hassle that entails. Does the tolerance of gay marriage increase the odds from 10% to 15% or more, as I think is being implied by the arguments I’ve seen magellan _et al_ make? It’s rather like the pervasive fear that the presence of gays will turn one’s children gay, except in this case the gays doesn’t even have to _meet_ your children - they just have go around being gay and normal-ish, and your children will absorb the gayness by long-distance osmosis, hence the need to establish and maintain that gays are not and never will be normal. ---
**Author:** ![shy\_guy](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/a6a055/32.png) [@shy\_guy](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/shy_guy)\ **Post date:** [September 1, 2012, 8:38pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-to-decide-which-instances-of-opposition-to-gay-marriage-are-hateful-and-bigoted/630653/374 "2012-09-01T20:38:21Z")
And the scheme doesn’t even work unless civil unions are universally understood to be inferior and stigmatized, because if the institutions were truly equal in every way, including public perception, then the denial of the “marriage” label wouldn’t have its desired effect of teaching kids that there is something wrong with being gay. ---
**Author:** ![bobot](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bobot/32/21622_2.png) [@bobot](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/bobot)\ **Post date:** [September 1, 2012, 11:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-to-decide-which-instances-of-opposition-to-gay-marriage-are-hateful-and-bigoted/630653/375 "2012-09-01T23:22:34Z")
I’m sorry, but it really is this simple: If you don’t want a gay marriage, don’t have one. If you don’t want _someone else_ to have one, sorry, but you are minding someone else’s business, in a fear based, freedom-limiting, heavy handed, unnecessary belief-projecting meddling. ---
**Author:** ![Voyager](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/voyager/32/133_2.png) [@Voyager](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Voyager)\ **Post date:** [September 1, 2012, 11:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-to-decide-which-instances-of-opposition-to-gay-marriage-are-hateful-and-bigoted/630653/376 "2012-09-01T23:39:45Z")
> [@magellan01](#): > > I’ve seen this sentiment expressed in quite a few of the SSM threads. It’s always phrased as if it’s the most ridiculous position in the world to want to preserve the meaning of a word. Of course, it’s not _just_ a word. The word expresses an idea. One, in this case, that some people, myself included, is worth protecting. To pooh=pooh this as just protecting a word misses the point. Words matter, to the extent that they communicate concepts. Are there any words you might think worthy of preserving? How about if we didn’t have a word for love, or hate, or rape, or gluttony, kindness, snow, chair, skateboard, avocado…? Words help us communicate certain concepts. One concept that has been fundamental to our society id the notion that a man and woman come together and form a union, and that that union is the ideal place in which to raise children. The word for that has been “marriage”. It works. It’s useful. And until recently, it was crystal clear what the word meant. Now, people want to change the definition to include concepts that the original concept disallows as a possibility. Those of us who think that a concept that has been so intrinsic, so fundamental, to our society deserves to have a word to describe it, find the expansion of the meaning of the word as unhelpful, nonsensical, even dangerous. In Egypt marriage means the union of one man and one or more women. Is that not marriage in your book? Or do word definitions end at borders? But I agree that marriage, which I consider the ultimate bond between two people, should stand for something important. That is why I understand why gays want it rather than a civil union, which sounds like a lease. What I don’t see why expanding it to include two people of the same sex diminishes the important meaning of marriage. Especially because none of us in heterosexual marriages will see our marriages degraded in any way. ---
**Author:** ![cosmosdan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/a6a055/32.png) [@cosmosdan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/cosmosdan)\ **Post date:** [September 1, 2012, 11:41pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-to-decide-which-instances-of-opposition-to-gay-marriage-are-hateful-and-bigoted/630653/377 "2012-09-01T23:41:18Z")
> [@lance\_strongarm](#): > > I don’t think we should call him a bigot. > > Doing so turns him into the victim, and turns the debate into one about who is a bigot. Instead of talking about why he’s wrong, it’s now about how he’s been treated unfairly. It’s how conservatives deflect the issue over and over - it’s the liberal media! or intolerant liberals! > > He’s wrong. Let’s focus on that. Don’t let him off the hook. How does calling someone a bigot turn them into a victim? We already have a lot of Chrisitians who think they and Christianity are being attacked simply because people call them on things they ought to be called on. I think there are plenty of otherwise good people who are just wrong on this issue. I think the term of bigot applies, based on it’s definition. That doesn’t ,make it malicious, or literally full of hate, but it does fit the definition of bigotry. It’s unfortunate if people mistakenly equate bigotry with Simon Lagree. Bigotry can be subtle. I mean isn’t the idea that we all sin and fall short? Is bigotry the exception? ---
**Author:** ![cosmosdan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/a6a055/32.png) [@cosmosdan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/cosmosdan)\ **Post date:** [September 2, 2012, 12:34am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-to-decide-which-instances-of-opposition-to-gay-marriage-are-hateful-and-bigoted/630653/378 "2012-09-02T00:34:28Z")
> [@Torn](#): > > A couple folks have asked if I believe that other marriages conducted in other religions should be “real” or endorsed. First, as stated many times, I support everyone’s right to believe or not believe how they wish. I don’t try to impose my beliefs on others,.. But when you oppose SSM based on verses from the Bible that’s exactly what you are doing , right? > [@](#): > > I think a possible resolution would be if the US Government had long ago had defined any commited relationship seeking legal status as “Civil Unions”. I believe that the term “marriage” should have been relegated to religious belief systems wherein the couples involved would still have to satisfy the legal paperwork filings to be recognized by the government. Now I’m aware that many Christian leaders would disagree, they would see this as an errosion of the foundation of our country, and they’re right. Where I think they’re wrong, is in not facing the reality of where we are today as a society and by holding so doggedly to what has been, they’re not considering a shift in our civiliazation and not casting an eye towards compromises that could benefit everyone in the long run. Maybe I’m wrong, and maybe my BatPhone will ring and God will tell me to retract this, but for now, it’s the best I have. Not really a solution to wish something had happened, but in reagard to civil unions. IMHO we already have what you seem to want and have had it all along. It always seemed to me that the only thing the government has to offer are the legal rights and benifits of a legally recognized civil union , also called marriage. There’s nothing the government does to make it sacred, or holy or sanctified. That’s all in the hearts and minds of the couple making the comittment. People are married by a jusitce of the peace, or a ships captain, or in some other ceremony , but they have to apply for the license to be recognized by the law and get the legal goodies that go with it, right? You can’t just have a ceremony in church and be married in the eyes of the law, correct? The quality of the conittment, the depth of love, seeing it as a holy or sacred vow, has nothing to do with the word marriage. Isn’t that obvious by the divorce rate. It’s only in the hearts of the individuals. You’re not protecting that comittment and any sacred vow by defending a word. So let it go. Realize that the word only means as much as it does to the individuals getting married. If it means more to you and people in your congregation and denomination because you see it as a sacred vow before God , great. Nobody is affecting that in any way. If you want to personally believe that your marriage is a Christian marriage and a SSM is just a legal marriage , nobody is preventing that. But honor what you’ve already said, and don’t try to legislate your personal religious beliefs onto others who don’t share them. ---
**Author:** ![lance\_strongarm](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/87869e/32.png) [@lance\_strongarm](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/lance_strongarm)\ **Post date:** [September 2, 2012, 12:55am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-to-decide-which-instances-of-opposition-to-gay-marriage-are-hateful-and-bigoted/630653/379 "2012-09-02T00:55:29Z")
> [@cosmosdan](#): > > How does calling someone a bigot turn them into a victim? “You called me a bigot and I’m not one, you mean liberal!” Happens all the time. Not saying he is a victim, just that he can claim to be one. ---
**Author:** ![lance\_strongarm](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/87869e/32.png) [@lance\_strongarm](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/lance_strongarm)\ **Post date:** [September 2, 2012, 12:57am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-to-decide-which-instances-of-opposition-to-gay-marriage-are-hateful-and-bigoted/630653/380 "2012-09-02T00:57:05Z")
> [@bobot](#): > > I’m sorry, but it really is this simple: If you don’t want a gay marriage, don’t have one. If you don’t want _someone else_ to have one, sorry, but you are minding someone else’s business, in a fear based, freedom-limiting, heavy handed, unnecessary belief-projecting meddling. Except marriage is by definition an exclusion of someone. Perhaps we could turn marriage into a civil contract in which any parties, of any status or number, could enter into, like a corporation or something. Someday. But until then, marriage will always include some people or marriage types and exclude others. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-to-decide-which-instances-of-opposition-to-gay-marriage-are-hateful-and-bigoted/630653.md?page=18) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-to-decide-which-instances-of-opposition-to-gay-marriage-are-hateful-and-bigoted/630653.md?page=20)